Ake:

1. I am not a weasel.
2. I am not rabid.
3. Your assertion about what I must believe is erroneous.

I know that homosexuality is a fact among human beings and among various other species.

I know that public health is not the topic under scrutiny here.

Sometimes I get the impression you would like to bury both these facts in other concerns.

As a right under law, the right to claim partnership for life with another human, and have it legally recognized with any priveleges or processes usually accorded that status, is not defineable by gender or preference in sexual practice.

I think there may well be churches who on religious grounds would not sanction same-sex marriages, but that is no reason for the commons defined by civil law to be bullied into the same exclusionary stance. To the contrary it is all the MORE reason for the civil codes to be firmly opposed to exclusion, because they represent the universality of the civil code without regard to individual quirks or opinions or idiosyncracies such as color, religion, gender or the like. The CIVIL code of law, starting with the Constitution, cannot be allowed to be discriminatory in the rights it establishes for citizens of the commons. A brief survey of the history of the Jewish people will demonstrate why. I am neither JEwish nor homosexual, myself, but even if I were both, the principle would still be independently sound.

If you will not learn the history of your kind, including the misery that is brought about by civil discrimination against minorities, you will find yourself re-experiencing them sooner or later, my friend.

All the arguments about "them" not being "normal" are exactly the kind of thing that people have used for centuries to discriminate and oppress each other. Our hope in establishing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to bring about a civilization which could do better than that.

We're still working on it, in spite of the many hurdles.



A