First let me write that I enjoyed the humorous take on the issue! Excellent citation. I was ROFLMAO at this:
Quote:Similarly, 23 percent are now convinced Saddam Hussein was either "somewhat" or "almost totally" Canadian. Or gay. Or a member of
Loverboy.
Of course, I don't know much about Canada, except that it's cold all the time and they have a sufficiently large French population such that we never need to worry about them attacking us militarily, but beyond that, if they want to allow same-sex marriages and their Constitution supports such a move at the federal level, s'fine with me.
I am one of a fairly rare breed of "GOPer" (rare outside of the
Log Cabin Republicans, at least) who supports the creation of recognized civil unions within this country. Of course, I would have states who so desired recognize such unions at the state level. I see nothing in the Constitution that addresses the nature of marriage, and that law Clinton signed regarding marriage being defined as a union of one man and one woman doesn't pass Constitutional muster, as far as I can see.
But, if a state wants same-sex civil unions, more power to 'em. I happen to think conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue. Homosexuals are not going anywhere (except shopping at Pottery Barn, of course) so I'd rather we support those who want to be in stable, committed relationships than tell them, "Hell no! Get out there and be promiscuous!"