I'd also point out the example of Catholic orphanages being chased out of Massachusetts for not placing kids with homosexual couples. Gay marriage is the defining battle in the ongoing war against religion in this country. Christians will either be forced to forsake their scriptures and embrace gay sex (thus revealing their faith to be hollow), or they will be labeled as "bigots" and destroyed. Heck, to even voice a contrary opinion will get you destroyed (see Chik-fil-A denied the ability to open a restaurant in Chicago).

People used the same specious argument that "hey look it didn't have an effect there" to justify no fault divorce. And look what it has done to our country. Most babies are now born out of wedlock because republicans surrendered the issue. A better argument however, is to point out that gay marriage is not "live and let live." We already have that. Gays can get married in any state under the 1st amendment. What they are demanding are the state marital subsidies. Money will come out of YOUR pocket to promote gay sex. Criminals will get acquitted by "marrying" their partners in crime and using the spousal testimony privilege. And worst of all Christianity will be demonized and undermined by the state.

When we start winning elections again, the polls will shift back in our favor. And it also helps if you get your story straight. Same sex marriage does destroy the institution of marriage. But what were you expecting to happen? Everyone's ring to suddenly explode? No, it destroys marriage by turning it from a holy sacrament into something corrupted. No longer will conservatives (or libs who are generally anti-marriage) fight to increase incentives for people to get married. In fact, social conservatives will likely rather see all the current marital benefits repealed so that their tax dollars don't go toward subsidizing evil. Within 50 years, if gay marriage is legalized everywhere, marriage will be a shadow of what it formerly was.

15 years ago it was proponents outnumbered by 2 to 1 in the polls, no states subsidized gay sex with marital benefits, and both Democrats and Republicans voted pretty much unanimously for DOMA and DADT. Yet did Democrats declare the fight over and run away from the issue? No, they waged a guerrilla war from within our schools, movies, and institutions until enough people were intimidated into giving in. We must start doing the same, because if the republicans give up/face reality/whatever you want to call it, you have to wake up to the reality that you will lose social conservatives. The polls have shifted SLIGHTLY against us not because the left has a better argument but because people are afraid to give the "wrong" answer.

Wow. Now that's a scary article. I always knew the left was using homosexuality as a sword against religion. I just can't believe they were so open about it and no one listened.

Six04, homosexuals are already free to marry in any state. (unlike polygamists, incestual couples, etc. who are thrown in jail for doing so) The term "ban" is quite frankly being abused by the left in this case. The only thing a non-gay marriage state does is NOT subsidize homosexual relationships with marital benefits. That no more infringes on the rights of gay people than it infringes my rights as a single person (likewise denied those benefits).

...(continued) In this analogy heterosexual marriage is like funding for the fine arts. Everyone agrees that heterosexual marriage is good and so we subsidize it with various economic and legal benefits, but not everyone agrees that gay relationships are good so we don't subsidize that (except in New York). Likewise most people agree that pleasant non-cursing speech (exemplified by the fine arts) is good so we subsidize that and do not subsidize profanity (except in New York). Subsidizing the fine arts does not infringe on the rights of people with Tourette's any more than subsidizing heterosexual relationship with marriage infringes the rights of homosexuals. Tourettes people can still curse. Gay people can still marry. Just no subs

Hey, maybe you are one of those people who just never thought this through. All government money comes from tax dollars. So when the government pays a gay "spouse" insurance benefits, spousal retirement benefits, social security widower's benefits, etc. it is coming out of your pocket. As for Tourette's syndrome, it is called an "analogy," and a pretty good one at that. Gay sex and cursing are both behaviors seen as immoral by most people. Now gays like to argue that "it's not a choice" (all evidence to the contrary). But I'm being charitable and assuming that is true for the sake of argument, such that gayness is like Tourette's syndrome (uncontrollable cursing). (continued)...

Indeed, and what possible argument can a liberal have against two brothers marrying since there is absolutely no possibility of a genetic freak baby from that?

Right on. And I'd add that it isn't the right focusing on this marriage stuff. Heck, this past presidential election was ALL about the economy. The right would like nothing more than for all this to go away. Let the liberals have their Sodom and Gomorrah, but let us have our righteous cities on the hill. The problem is that the left doesn't tolerate that. Our cities on the hill remind them of their own sin, so they must drag us down with them, because if everyone says something is ok, then it is good right? Then there are also the libs using gay marriage to legitimize gay sex and stigmatize the opposition (namely Christians) in their war on religion.

Sure an atheist can get married. Just like an atheist is free to pray. As for children of gay parents, how can you ignore the vast body of studies that show that kids raised by homos are dramatically more likely to become gay themselves. Heck, a majority of kids raised by lesbians become gay. It kinda blows the whole "its not a choice" BS out of the water. But you never hear about that. Even "good" gay parents corrupt the morals and orientation of their kids just by setting a bad example.