As we decide for whom we will vote we simultaneously decide which direction we want our country to take.
Democrats will tell you that McCain represents Bush's third term, even while the left side of their brain tells them that isn't true -- just another slogan.
What
IS true is that the California Supreme Court has approved gay marriage in one of our most populous states. This is just another product of libturds pushing for their own personal brand of licentious freedoms. What is it about gays marrying that liberals view as normal, natural, and in need of protection?

Marriage is essentially a social construct established to protect children that are the product of two people. Especially today, two people don't need this construct to pledge their love. As a matter of fact, during the 1960's the counter-culture liberals denigrated marriage as unnecessary traditionalism. Today we see the breakdown of moral boundaries, the rise of single motherhood, and more children in poverty as a result. Now liberals want us to recognize their artificial form of something they once rejected; an artifice that cannot replicate nature's intent of procreation -- the reason we were made (or evolved) as two genders.
My feelings regarding children in marriage extend also to heterosexual couples who pledge never to have children and actively strive against it. And to those heterosexuals who would choose to engage exclusively in oral or anal sex (if there are any -- which I completely doubt but cannot prove). I would ask them, why get married -- simply to have a legal contract to bind you together? In our already litigious society do we really need a contract to express love?
Homosexuals, by definition, cannot naturally have children. In fact, they must amplify and distort nature to reach that goal. Take the pregnant man for instance (
LINK).
First she was a woman, but then she wanted to be a man, so then
he wanted to do what only women can do and become pregnant....does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?
Liberals bitch about how we corrode and distort nature with our man-made pollutants, but don't we also pollute the nature of Mankind by warping one of the basic functions of humans?
Marriage protects children by

ensuring they are provided for economically and that they have social models to emulate. Men and woman approach relationships and child-rearing in different ways; complementary ways. Men and men or women and women do not provide complementary roles and the few studies we have, show negative outcomes for children raised in homosexual households, particularly girls raised in lesbian relationships. Sexual identity confusion and even attempts to seduce the young girls by lesbian acquaintances of the "partners" has been repeatedly recorded.
So, why do homosexuals need marriage? Do they feel they need a contract with the government to declare their love? Is that what homosexual love is about - a contract?
Do they believe their union or behavior is as valuable to society as a normal marriage? This is certainly not true for young girls in lesbian arrangements. Similarly, this was not true for the Catholic Church after liberalizing entry into the clergy in the 1970's. As mentioned in previous posts, an
overwhelming number of priest scandals were of the homosexual variety.
Perhaps homosexuals have a need to put their relationship "in your face" -- is that the motivation?
Liberals complain that traditional beliefs are outdated and we need to move forward. Love is all that counts. Liberals ask us why we stop them from expressing their love. I would ask them, what if two brothers want to marry, what do we do? Is that acceptable? Is it really just about love? Certainly there can be no tradition-based prohibition against relatives marrying since inbreeding (the reason for some marriage laws) is not possible in homosexual marriages.
In September 2005 the Netherlands permitted a
civil union between three people. Is that where we want to go?
The late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) was a scholar in the field of sociology. Even though he served one of the most liberal states in the Union, Moynihan understood that counter-cultural pressures from the 1960's led to a "dumbing down of deviance".
In November we have an opportunity to voice our disapproval against deviance imposed by a few judges and applauded by
Nancy Pelosi and her crew...
Be sure to register...