All too often we take our eyes off the prize because of these wedge issues and guess what happens at the end of each election?

We have created a citizenry that do not act like citizens toward each other at all and we are still left without better health care, schools or economy. Don't let the extremes run our elections.

To quote The Who, "We won't be fooled again."

I agree with you. We should only amend our constitutions (state or federal) to expand the rights of the individual. As a fellow Pennsylvanian, I will do all I can to ensure that our state constitution does not become a vehicle to restrict the rights of the individual.

Fumo's response to my (e-mailed) letter to him re: the Marriage Amendment:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution. I agree with you that this is an Amendment which must not be allowed to pass.
I think it is important that we protect and value all Pennsylvania families. Pennsylvania's Constitution should protect the rights of Pennsylvanians, not take them away. It is not appropriate to use the Constitution for discrimination, and I will try my best to ensure that Pennsylvania's Constitution remains a document that we can all be proud of.

Whenever I talk with conservo-whackos about gays getting married, I always resort to the tactic of arguing how marriage is a legal contract, not a religious one. Therefore, in the eyes of the state, any 2 consenting, legal-aged adults can marry........regardless of sexual orientation, or any orientation for that matter. I love the look on their faces when they try to counter the argument. They ALWAYS resort back to religion. It's actually amusing. Try it.

-Philly

Holy smokes! Citizen Hunter is inspiring leftist nuts to offer shoddy leftist thinking by the scoopful. For one, there's poor Mike Collins, who apparentlt can read the mind of God, judging his inane comments that "Jesus must cry when looking down on the rock he built his house on" and "judging sexuality must be "at the bottom of a long list of God's concerns." Although Mr. Collins doesn't say, we can be sure those concerns are all leftist agenda items.
Then there's poor Philly, who simply does NOT understand what marriage is. Marriage is a NATURAL contract devised by humanity between men and women for the continuation of the human race, and in view of this important function, the state has the duty to protect and encourage it. This is called responsible stewardship. I suggest that Philly, Mikey and the other leftist moonbats above put aside their political correctness and start to learn about why traditionl marriage is important. Anyway, they (and Citizen Hunter) had better, because they are going to lose on this issue, and handily.

George Tomezsko
editor, Voices For The Unborn

I'm a Catholic straight single male that cannot see how letting other people that are not like me in some respects hurt marriage or my faith. I would think that God created them a certain way.(I do not have a line to Him, only in that I have asked Him into my heart, ask for His forgiveness where I have failed, and for His salvation, and also pray for His guidance daily) Now if someone wants to marry a dolphin or multiple partners or something else like that, then I would draw the line, as my gut/soul tells me that is not right. Now I do think a "traditional" marriage is between a man and a woman, but we're talking semantics here. Please tell me what the problem would be and why God's guidance to me is being misread by me. Thanks George. I don't consider myself a leftist either as not many leftist are pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military, and pro-faith. I'm also pro-doing the right thing and I pray God has something to do with that.

...cannot see how letting other people (marry) that are not like me in some respects hurt marriage or my faith.

--I forgot to add the word "marry".

Okay, heres the deal, God envisioned marriage as union between a Man and a Woman. The constitution envisioned those same ideas. If a couple of homosexual persuasion wants to live together and be "United", they should be allowed to do so but dont use the sacred word of Marriage. With that being said, they should not have a less rights and definately not be treated the same for they are not in accordance with God's Plan or the Envisionment of our Forefathers. Finally, I believe the point where we went wrong is when our government allowed those Darn hippies to fill the world with all those ideas of lax morals. Bring back the Gustapo, everybody does what they are told and have no choice. Lets clean up the morality at home and teach our kids to walk the path of goodness and we wouldnt have this problem.

To all people like George Tomezsko, I say one thing: Stop being so fearful of people who aren't WASP's and start realizing that you and your contradicting, hateful, religio-induced, brain-washed clans are in the minority. Marriage to me is 2 conseting, legal-aged adults who love each other and sign a legal contract to support each other through each other's respective lives.

My prediction: 500 years from now, Christianity as we know it fails to exist any longer.

-The liberal bastion of Philadelphia

Dear Philly:
Two points to ponder: 1) when are you lefty losers going to realize that name-calling is no argument for or against anything, and just betrays a lack of mental acuity; 2) you can scream and stew and wiggle and kick all you want that "to me, marriage is two consenting,legal-aged adults who love each other" from now to Doomsday. Unfortunately, that is NOT and NEVER will be what marriage actually is. All the ideological hallucinations in the world by you and your lefty buddies cannot change reality. You tried in the Soviet Union, and we all know how that turned out, don't we?
I have a counter prediction: that liberalism will go to its grave well in advance of Christianity. Bet on it.

All i can say is, my married --yes , married (in Hawaii) gay landlords who live directly above our apartment, have NOT had a negative impact on my hetero marriage in the four years we have lived in the same building. Now, those tv shows called "who wants to marry a millionaire, or a midget or a model or whatever", those sound like things that make a mockery of marriage.

I really don't get how gay marriage threatens hetero marriages at all. Marriage IS a legal contract, not a religious one. No church should be forced by the government to perform a religious marriage/union ceremony for anyone it does not beleive should be joined together. But legal marriage should be available to any two consenting adults.

Anyway, the homophobes who hide behind christianity --well, i think most of the male homophobes have secret gay tendencies that they are afraid that they cannot control, so they fight for legal controls in the hopes that will keep them from acting on their true feelings. It's pretty sad, really. Just be yourselves and love who you are meant to love. Stop being so afraid.

lulu, Great post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I really feel sad for you, George. You want to measure my mental acuity? I'm a PhD student, idiot. Mental acuity? You and pathetic homophobe ways are honestly laughable. I hear your buddy, Rush Limbaugh just got arrested for drug possession.

HAHA

Hypocrites.

lulu, Great post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I really feel sad for you, George. You want to measure my mental acuity? I'm a PhD student, idiot. Mental acuity? You and your pathetic homophobe ways are honestly laughable. I hear your buddy, Rush Limbaugh just got arrested for drug possession.

HAHA

Hypocrites.

...and the pursuit of happiness.

2 people who love each other should be allowed to "marry" "unionize" - whatever the term. While I am defending your right to free speech, please, focus on your own family. Hoorah!

Great post!

-Tell your hubby to weigh in on environmental matters!

Holy smokes! Judging by the above posts, it must swarming season for the red-breasted leftwing loon bird (genus species emplyheadius soontobe extincticus). As for poor Mikey Collins, you have proved the very point I was alluding to in my post of 25 April, namely, that your "reading" of the mind of God was an attempt to ascribe to God a leftwing agenda. You have proven my point and simultaneously committed the sin of persumption (congratulations!). As for the "absurdity of the heterosexual divorce rate," that is NOT the fault of the institution of marriage, but reflects ONLY the personal failing of the couples involved. Your "argument" here is classic leftist wind, and can be stated as follows: "if an institution (like marriage) is not perfect, that is evidence of the defects inherent in pre-socialistic society and ought to be abolished. I'll bet you and your lefty posters did not know that. As for the "Christian/American lust for war," two points are clear: 1) I always thought that Jesus taught peace and turning the other cheek. I strongly suspect you selectively read the Bible to serve both your ideological and sexual fantasies; and 2)that phrase you used (or variations thereof) were used as headlines in just about every socialist or alternative newspaper published on every college campus during the Vietnam War. Conclusion: I stand by all my statements and you, my boy, are so deeply buried in the leftist ideological box you cannot even see its walls.

Now on to lulu and Philly: Out here in the real world, everyone knows the term "homophobia" and its cousins, "sexism," "racism," "lookism," and "speciesism,"(note the quotation marks, they ARE intentional) are propaganda terms,and as such, have NO (repeat NO) meaning. They were devised at various times during the twentieth century to provide the Left with what it thought was an avant-garde form of argumentation: name-calling. The term "homophobia" in particular is the most artificial of them all and was devised in the 1970s by the homosexual portion of the "hippie" community to break down resistence to the giving and receiving of homosexual acts by teenagers who had run away from home to join the hippie movement. As for Philly, your post proves the old adage that Ph.D. just means "piled higher and deeper." I stand by my all my statements and no amont of wishful thinking or name-calling is going to change the true nature of marriage and the NATURAL purposes of sexuality. Get used to it, kids!

I wouldn't doubt that Georgie-porgie-puddin'-pie doesn't have his own "tendencies".

I'm curious....How long did it take you to come up with you quip about the meaning of PhD? You prove your idiocy by making academia and knowledge seem to be evil and a waste of time. You are truly spoken like a true right-winged hyprocrite. You should watch the movie, "American Beauty". You remind me of that controlling, freak military-father character....particularly the end scene where his true person is revealed for everyone to see.

Here's to Bush's 29% approval rating!!

By the way, Georgie-porge......are you evangelical? 10 bucks you are......

Love,

Philly

Dear Philly:

You own me ten bucks -- I'm Catholic and NOT evangelical. As for the quip about the meaning of Ph.D., it was widely used on the Temple campus during my graduate student days in the early 1970s, so widely circulated, in fact, that some professors even used it. You are also correct about my "tendencies" -- they are gloriously, outrageously, and, alas, boringly -- NORMAL!

I completely agree with Lulu's post. Last Week, Rabbi Eric Yoffe spoke at Liberty University's Covocation. In his speech he remarked on gay marriage with the following: "...gay Americans pose no threat to their friends, neighbors, or co-workers, and when two people make a lifelong commitment to each other, we believe it is wrong to deny them the legal guarantees that protect them and their children and benefit the broader society."

I could not agree with him more.

We are all a team and should ensure that all rights are protected, for EVERYONE.