So, what you're saying, is that morals don't really matter anymore to conservatives...? It won't be long before the Democrats hang this man around the Republicans' necks.. The claim that the Republicans are the "family values" party just got less convincing.

So, when will the retraction and apology come, ever? see: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=40162

NIMH on severe mental illness and violence: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2011/understanding-severe-mental-illness.shtml

I thought Scouts were supposed to be tough and yet they are whining about being bullied. Geez. And this Stemberger is a liar--gays are not allowed to participate, if there is any suspicion that a member or leader is gay they are booted no matter how discreet they are. But ultimately, the Scouts can do whatever they want and gay folks should accept that and move on.

Certainly some gays are seeking societal approval thru the courts, but not all. Most gay couples seek security and stability and they do so because they're human. To so easily discount that shows you to be pretty cold and hard-hearted, yankette. Then to blame the devaluation of marriage on the attention currently paid to gay marriage is utterly absurd. Heterosexuals began devaluing marriage long ago when divorce rates starting going thru the roof. The devaluation of marriage is neither recent nor something that can be blamed on gay folks.

Rand Paul has the right approach. In the current DOMA case, only section 3 is before the Supreme Court. And that section deals solely with how the federal government defines marriage, not what states have to recognize or not recognize. So, don't worry about "subsidizing gay sex" whatever that means. Though, considering that low-income gay men with hiv qualify for gov't benefits now--especially for medications--well then you may already be "subsidizing gay sex."

Actually, this post is in error--the Warren v DC case was not decided by the US Supreme Court, it was decided by the DC Court of Appeals and is cited at 444 A2d 1, decided in 1981. It really has not been cited by courts much beyond those in DC, so its reach is quite limited. The case certainly does not stand for any national or otherwise broad principle of law. FYI

"The second is to reduce the threat of epidemic-level, taxpayer-crushing, out-of-wedlock births." Considering the current rate of out-of-wedlock births, we're already at the "epidemic level." Perhaps more attention should be paid to this issue, even though, by common sense, it is a purely heterosexual failing.

What ignorance and hubris. There is not extensive hard data on alcoholism among gays and the data that does exist often links drinking among gays to the fact that gay socializing has most often been forced into bars. We do know that alcoholism is very high among native Americans, so I guess you count them as all miserable. And do you even know any gay people? Anyone that makes broad statements that all gays "are miserable people" displays the kind of ignorance that destroys their credibility. So, let me take your approach and say that all people called "Ms Kelly" are miserable people...

So, there are no sinners? Only good people who sin from time-to-time?

It's sad. With most Christians it seems, the knives come out sooner or later...