Matt Hill Comer is one of four Greensboro students testing the Army's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

"I love my country enough to defend it," says the well-known local blogger to the N&R.

Matt's been writing about the national Right to Serve campaign for a while, today is the day he helps bring it home.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds on gays who want to serve in the military: "Seems admirable to me.  Why not let 'em?"

UPDATE II: They came, they sat-in, they got arrested...

Comments

[ross]

Regardless of your views on 'don't ask,' it should be noted that serving in the military is a privilege, not a right.

[Michael]

This is craziness. It is the sad and predictable outcome of the "don't ask-don't tell" lunacy foisted on the military by the Clinton administration. Homosexuals have no place in the military and should not serve. Period. I served for 10 years in the Navy and cannot imagine having openly homosexual shipmates in the close quarters of shipboard life. Things are little different in other branches of the service. Your attempt at "tolerance" is ridiculous in the extreme.

Imagine if you can what it would be like on board ship if sailors could bring girlfriends on board and party down in the berthing spaces. Same effect. That would never be allowed nor should it. Homosexuals just need to find some other way to demonstrate their patriotism - their sexual proclivities - perversions to many - just don't fit in the rigid and disciplined life of the military.

[Samuel Spagnola]

I think the military should take him. Get him to sign the papers so he can't get out and send him to Iraq. Then we'll see this was just a political stunt by Matt and watch how he squirms to get out of his military service when they actually let him in.

Further, if they don't ask, why should he tell? Is that really relevant? I never once told a recruiter "by the way, I sleep with women".

[nathaniel]

The whole can't let gays in because imagine what they would do for discipline, may have had some validity years ago, but now it is a ridiculous argument. With women serving side by side with men, and I realize some wish to change this as well, sex happens in the barricks. Having gays there would not change anything in this regard.

[Kirk D.]

Michael, are the men and women serving in our armed forces adults or children? Do you not expect them to excercise self control on sexual matters? Do you not afford them the respect and admiration deserving of these indivduals that have chosen to sacrifice their lives for our country?

Men and woman serve side by side and 99% of the time there is nothing that personal about their relationships with eachother. Why do you expect homosexuals to excercise no self control? Unless you look down on them and think they are inferior in some way. Given the current policies of invasion and occupation by the current administration, the military needs all the manpower it can get.

[Ed Cone]

Privilege or right, serving in the military has at some times in the past been an obligation.

[greendog]

Sam: "I never once told a recruiter 'by the way, I sleep with women'."

Yeah, see, there's that whole lying thing they don't really cotton to either...

[paul a'barge]

Gays already have the priviledge of serving in the military. What they don't have is the priviledge of shoving their lifestyle-choice down the throats of their colleagues.

Want to serve? Good on you. Join up and shut up. Keep it to yourself.

Want to make an issue of your lifestyle-choice? Good on you, as well. Lucky you don't live in Iran, or some other homophobic culture. The military is a place for warriors, not gay activists. Choose.

[nathaniel]

So paul having people investigate them because they are in dinner theater is shoving a life style down your throat. (that did happen by the way) Being seen off base on a date with the a member of the same sex is shoving it down your throat?

[Samuel Spagnola]

GD- which is probably why they wouldn't accept you.

[Jim Caserta]

Would anyone not want this guy fighting for his country? Or how many here would have the guts to tell him to stay out.

We do want warriors in our military, but I don't know why a gay person could not also be a warrior. Do we have a surplus of Arabic-speakers in our services (watch the video)?

[Matt Hill Comer]

This is the only commenting I'm doing. Don't think for one second, I'm getting involved in the fray that this thread will become.

In response to this: "Regardless of your views on 'don't ask,' it should be noted that serving in the military is a privilege, not a right."

It was the Right to Serve Campaign... as in our right to serve openly, honestly and honorably without lying about ourselves or hiding who we are. Straight people don't have to hide who they are. We shouldn't have to either. If we are willing to serve our country, it does not matter what our sexual orientation is.

[Roch101]

"I never once told a recruiter "by the way, I sleep with women".

Sam, you served in the military?

[Lex]

I served for 10 years in the Navy and cannot imagine having openly homosexual shipmates in the close quarters of shipboard life.

Good thing you didn't serve on the USS Constellation during the Vietnam era. The "Connie Girls" were legendary. Read about them and more in "Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military," by Randy Shilts.

I think the military should take him. Get him to sign the papers so he can't get out and send him to Iraq.

Sam, I don't know Matt; perhaps you do. But if you have any evidence that he's not sincere, please present it. Otherwise, you're just taking a cheap shot.

Further, if they don't ask, why should he tell? Is that really relevant?

If "don't ask, don't tell" really were how things work, you'd have a point. But as the Shilts book linked above documents, that ain't how it really works. And things have only grown worse since it was published.

My late father said that when he was in Korea, as American combat units were being racially integrated per Harry Truman's orders, no one stopped to ask what color a soldier was as long as he was shooting back at the enemy. The enemy's still shooting. Are we so well-staffed that we can afford to turn down otherwise qualified people who are ready, willing and able to shoot back? Or is it better to accept, say, white supremacists in significant numbers rather than barring gays from enlisting AND actively purging even those already in the services who haven't been asked and aren't telling?

[David Hoggard]

Cut it out with all of that logical logic, Lex. Just cut it out.

This is not the place nor the time for such talk. ;-)

[Joe Killian]

I actually have met Matt and while he is quite the self-described media whore I do think he'd serve if they'd let him.

Anyone who says otherwise (especially without meeting him) is invalidating their own argument before it begins.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Roch, no I didn't serve. I took all the prerequisite tests and even went down to MEPS in Charlotte for specialized testing, but I decided not to join. Actually, this was one of my biggest regrets.

As for the question about Matt's sincerity, he stated he was going down there and was going to let them know he was gay. If it's not relevant as he claims, then why tell them? If he is sincere in wanting to join, and he knows the current policy will exclude them, then why tell them? Obviously, the political point he is trying to make outweighs his actual desire to serve. I don't need to know him personally. His actions speak for hisself.

[Joe Killian]

That has to be the most poorly reasoned argument I've read on this blog. Ever. And that's saying something.

If I knew a bank wouldn't give me a loan if they knew I was Catholic I'd be faced with two choices: hide the fact that I'm Catholic and get the money while compromising and buying into a system that's morally repugnant...or leave the bank without the money but maintain my dignity.

My letting them know that I'm a Catholic when I apply -though they may not ask, reserving the right to take action should they find this out later - doesn't mean I don't really want the loan. I just don't want it under the conditions offered and don't believe they should be able to attach those conditions. If they decide to waive those conditions when faced with the human cost of their policy, great. If not, people will be allowed to see it...particularly if you invite the media.

Your casting aspursions upon his character without ever meeting him is disgusting. Your rationalization that you can judge his sincerity through (mis)interpreting his motives and actions is ridiculous.

It could be argued that the fact that you're willing to cast stones at a guy who's looking to serve after you "decided not to join" speaks for itself. If you're serious about regretting it I can put you in touch with some Marine recruiters I know. They're relaxing age restrictions because of recent trouble recruiting and Paris Island is lovely this time of year.

[Roch101]

It's not too late, Sam. They're talking guys up to age 42 now.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Matt has made quite a name for himself by advertising his sexuality. That alone seems odd to me. Most people don't define themselves that way. The underlying premise is still the same- if you truly want something bad enough, you may have to make sacrifices. The bank makes the conditions, not you. That's the problem with the left- they believe the whole world should revolve around their personal situation. Further, the point still stands that if Matt doesn't believe his sexuality should be a valid concern, then perhaps he should't advertise it. The policy is "don't ask, don't tell". It's actually pretty damn simple. He not only has "told", he's gone to the media about something that he claims shouldn't matter. He is the one making it matter on this issue and so many others.

Matt's gay. That's his business. However, he is going out of his way to make sure it is everybody elses. There are consequences to that.

As far as my military service, if I didn't have a family and a business to run, I would have already joined. In fact, I made such an inquiry last year, but it is not feasible. And nobody asked me if I had sex with men or women, and I didn't tell either.

[Samuel Spagnola]

And I might add, that I could care less if he's gay and wants to serve. I said at the outset they should let him in. But it seems odd that a sophomore in college is really willing to quit school to join the military. By knowing they won't take him, it's a win-win. He doesn't have to really join and leave school and he gets the publicity he craves. It's like politicians who vote for bills they really don't like because they know they won't pass anyway.

So I'll say again- let him in. Once you sign the papers, you can't get out.

[David Hoggard]

Dr. King made quite a name for himself, too, through advertising the color of his skin... but at the same time he advanced a larger cause. King was black, and "that was his business"... but he made it our business by force-feeding his business down our lilly white throats. It worked. And we, as a society, are all the better for it. (Arguments welcomed)

I don't get the feeling that Matt's burning desire in all of this is to gain entry into an armed service. (Although I believe he would proudly, ableit stoicly, serve if his protesting doesn't go as envisioned)

From what I know of Matt, I believe his burning desire is to clear the way for others in the future. I applaud him and his fellow sit-inners, but pray their loins are girded for long-haul.

[Samuel Spagnola]

"I don't get the feeling that Matt's burning desire in all of this is to gain entry into an armed service"

That's exactly my point, David. This is part of an organized, national campaign. Are we really to believe that Matt and his other protesters decided to join at the same time, which just happens to coincide with a national protest?

No. This was an orchestrated publicity stunt. All I said was "fine, give him what he claims to want".

Dr. King did not advertise the color of his skin. It was readily apparent. Sexuality is different because most people don't run around screaming "I sleep with women" or "I sleep with men".

There are two types of heterosexuals when it comes to gay people. Those who care that someone is gay and those who could care less. I think most people could care less. However, even those people can have their "tolerance" tested by activists who spend way too much energy going out of their way to let people know their sexuality. It just seems like a stupid way to define oneself. I don't care if someone is gay or not. It makes no difference to me, but I admit to getting irritated by people who make letting other people know they are gay the primary focus of their life. On the one hand, they don't want people to care that they are gay, but on the other hand they go out of their way to remind people over and over that they are gay. I just want to say "so what? Give it a rest. Go find something to do. Okay, you like men. Big deal. Why is it so important that you tell me that over and over?"

I just think Matt should be Matt. Maybe Matt the musician, or Matt the writer, or whatever it is that he likes to do. But Matt the guy who is attracted to men doesn't really tell me much about him except who he prefers to have sex with, and I really don't care about that.

I don't care if Matt's gay. I'm not part of the group where that would matter. I don't have a beef with him personally, I just don't care for his tactic or his obsession with his own sexuality. It wouldn't matter to me one bit if I was out having a beer with the guy. My post is simply about the tactic involved on this issue, and how it seems to be nothing more than a publicity stunt premised on drawing attention to an irrelevant trait by people who claim to believe it should be irrelevant- yet don't practice that in real life.

His own words and the facts demonstrate this was a publicity stunt, not a sincere effort. To believe otherwise is naive.

[Joe Killian]

If it isn't clear to you that people who are straight don't have to worry about "advertising their sexuality" - because the entire world is set to assume and accomodate their heterosexuality - I just don't know what to say to you.

"Homosexuality's fine...I just don't want to see or hear about it. If they don't think people should take it into consideration then they shouldn't talk about it..." is such a backward-ass sentiment as to be a conversation-ender.

Plenty of really lousy social systems would still be in place (and many are) if we all agreed that discrimination doesn't count as long as you fool people into believing you're something else.

[Samuel Spagnola]

"Homosexuality's fine...I just don't want to see or hear about it. If they don't think people should take it into consideration then they shouldn't talk about it..."

I never said such a thing. I know plenty of homosexuals, and it is occasionally a topic of conversation with them that is no different than discussing the trials and tribulations of heterosexual relationships. I'm not offended, I never claim not to want to hear or see it. It makes no difference to me.

But there is a substantial difference between knowing someone is gay, having a normal conversation with them which may include aspects of their sexuality or meeting their boyfriend/girlfriend and dedicating ones life to defining who they are by that fact whether it be through silly protests like this or marching in the street essentially saying "I sleep with people of my own sex". What a dumb thing to rally around.

We can debate whether the military policy is good or not. That's a different issue. This was about tactics that just seem to revolve such a strange trait, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. Matt has chosen to make a spectacle of his sexuality which seems weird to me, and he shouldn't be suprised when people treat it as such or scratch their heads and wonder why it's so important that he make it public knowledge over and over again.

[David Hoggard]

"Are we really to believe that Matt and his other protesters decided to join at the same time, which just happens to coincide with a national protest?"

Only if you just fell of the turnip truck.

Of course it is a publicity stunt, of course it is coordinated grandstanding, of course it is not about Matt joining the Army.

It is about a sincere effort, through proven and effective tactics, to get rid of an ineffective, wink-and-a-nod, policy.

For the record, Sam... I agree that, on the whole, gay men and women are more "in-your-face" about their sexuality than your run-of-the-mill hetero. (Especially when they are among their close friends.)

I'm sure there is some 'shrink'-defined explanation for the phenomenon that I have never inquired about - nor has it concerned me enough to explore. For whatever the reason, that's just the way it is.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Actually, David, I really don't care if they are in my face about when they are close friends. That's really no different than hanging out with straight people and talking about dating, relationships, who is hot, who is not. That makes a whole lot more sense to me than advertising it and throwing it in the face of people you don't know. Sexuality seems like such a personal thing that most people don't really discuss except when among close friends. That's why I don't get all the publicity stunts based on sexuality.

[Ed Cone]

The whole "why must they discuss it publicly" argument fails to address the fact that many public policies (e.g. military service rules, partnership rights, etc) focus squarely on their sexuality.

I'm sure a lot of gay people would prefer to be less here/queer/in-your-face, but their options as of now are to fight in public, or suffer in silence.

[Joe Killian]

Sam: It should surprise no one that you don't "get" this.

You're heterosexual.

No one is making political fodder of your personal sexual and romantic decisions. No one is disqualifying you from military service because of them. No one is suggesting that you are a child molestor or sexual pervert because of them. No one is questioning whether you should be allowed to be around children of the same sex for extended periods of time. No one is telling you that your partners can't share the benefits you get through your job because you're a homosexual.

This would of course seem like a "dumb thing to rally around" to you -- you have seemingly have no concept of or appreciation for how it could impact peoples' lives.

It would seem to me that, faced with all of these things (and the military service thing might tick me off most of all, for personal reasons) people who AREN'T rallying around their sexuality and demanding to be treated with the same consideration given homosexuals are out of their heads.

[Joe Killian]

"Given heterosexuals."

Long night.

[Roch101]

"I think most people could care less." -- Sam

I wish they would.

[Samuel Spagnola]

"No one is making political fodder of your personal sexual and romantic decisions." I didn't do this, who is?

"No one is suggesting that you are a child molestor or sexual pervert because of them." I didn't do this, who is?

"No one is questioning whether you should be allowed to be around children of the same sex for extended periods of time." I didn't do this, who is?

As to the military question- the policy is not designed to discriminate against homosexuals because they are homosexuals. I don't believe the military makes the argument that by sheer virtue of being gay, you are inherently unfit to serve. Rather, the argument is that being openly gay is problematic because of the nature of being housed in close quarters among other things. This is the same logic that prohibited females from serving for a long time. Even today, they are housed in separate quarters. We can debate whether that is a valid policy or not. Certainly, many gay people have served honorably in the military, and the mere fact that they were gay was no obstruction. However, there is a difference between being gay and openly gay. Don't ask, don't tell is a compromise that recognizes the reality that gays can serve honorably in the military but also addresses the military's concern about the problems they perceive with serving and being openly gay. The book cited a few posts above illustrates this problem. The hazing, etc. is not just speculation, it is documented. That can be cured by military justice, but that doesn't solve the problem of close quarters and the potential for problems that the military associates not only with homosexuality but also heterosexuals in close quarters. There are valid points I believe on both fronts.

With regard to benefits, I believe we already had that debate a month or so ago, so you can google that discussion.

So I don't "get" why who someone sleeps with is a defining characteristic for anyone.

The military also has height and weight standards that are implemented for rational reasons. Are people marching in the streets because they are too short? Do short people define themselves by the fact that they are short?

If you think I don't get it, then so be it. But don't go assigning beliefs or positions to me that I do not have. I'm usually very forward about such things, so there is no need to speculate.

[Roch101]

David and Sam, I take you at your word that you don't like the "in your face" displays of gay and lesbian sexuality. Is it the in-your-face part that troubles you or is the homosexual part? I ask because I don't recall reading of either of you bothered by TV shows such as "The Bachelor," "The Bachelorette," "The Flavour of Love;" publications such as Playboy, Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Issue; Hooters, beauty pagents, beauty queens in parades, Quest Personals TV ads or Girls Gone Wild. So, is it the flaunting of sexuality you dislike or just that of gay sexuality.

(And, BTW, Sam misses the point entirely that Matt's protest was to draw attention to his sexual orientation -- at least you understood that, and quite well, David.)

[David Hoggard]

I'm straight (not that there's anything wrong with that),

But... some degree of... how should we say... flambouancy... has always been, in my experience, a hallmark of homosexuality. That said, I also know a great number of gay folks who are as buttoned-down as your average conservative barrister.

But, gratefully, I have known my share of promiscuous - (flamboyant perhaps?) hetero women and nearly countless wear-their-dicks-on-their-sleeve male whores (not me... you understand). None of which were barred from the military to my knowledge.

[Ed Cone]

"...who is?"

Yeah, who ever said or did anything like these things in American politics?

It's up to the commmenters in this thread to provide specific examples for Sam, who has apparently been living on Mars for the last 20 years.

[David Hoggard]

Roch, Sorry, but I was writing as you posted...

Regarding what you wrote, "I take you at your word that you don't like the "in your face" displays of gay and lesbian sexuality".

Please point me to what I wrote that supports your statement. I made it clear that I'm not "bothered" (your word) or "concerned" (my word) about "in your face" sexuality.

[Samuel Spagnola]

No, Roch, I didn't miss the point- that WAS my point. I don't care about "flaunting sexuality" as you say. I think that Matt's problem is that his most important goal seems to be to let people know he's gay and make sure they don't forget it. I just don't know many people that put such a personal premium on such things. What Matt does is not flaunting sexuality, it borders on demanding that we actually care about his sexuality and that is just plain weird.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Roch:

I'll dare to say that in a historical context we can link many of the social ills we face today to a breakdown in the family structure.

I would further argue in general terms that the choices men and women make have consequnces. When we run from the consequences and their inherint responsibilites, we violate the direct flow of cause and effect, and channel effect in directions they were never intended to go.

We have our pleasure in the moment, and damn the future.

So, I would say that the in-your-face sexuality of the media in the last 25 years has become burdensome and made many numb to the meaning of sexuality, until it becomes just another means to an end.

I'm not arguing against sex. I enjoy sex as much as the next person. But sex has consequences.

When we opened the door to flaunting sex as a commodity in our commercial society, we opened the door to a lot of things that were never intended.

Who can what consequences will follow from making gay sex socially acceptable?

[Samuel Spagnola]

No Ed, I haven't been living on Mars, but I think it's just plain stupid to march because some private individual hurt your feelings or pissed you off. You can quote Jerry Falwell all day long to support your point, but to waste your time protesting the ramblings of Jerry Falwell seems like a waste of time. Who cares what that idiot thinks? If marching against people who piss you off because they don't like something about you really accomplished anything, I'd probably be in front of your house right now.

Further, people complain and question other peoples romantic and sexual decisions all the time- so should we have an anti-family (the number one source of such criticisms I would submit) march to demand people not do this to us?

It's just whining because some people don't like something about you. Grow some thick skin. Everyone has something that others don't like about them. Some more than others on this blog. If I called someone a pervert here, I would fully expect them to tell me to screw off and move on.

[Samuel Spagnola]

"but to waste your time protesting the ramblings of Jerry Falwell seems like a waste of time." Okay, I pulled a little "Live and Let Die" on that one, no pun intended ("but IN this ever changing world IN which we live IN..."). Perhaps I should edit to say "...seems obsessive".

[Samuel Spagnola]

David, there are only about five people in Guilford County who meet the definition of "your average conservative barrister."

[Alan Cone Bulluck]

Why does this Matt person discriminate against the other people who are denied the opportunity to serve in the military? Why so biased? What about the morbidly obese? Those with poor vision? The short people? How about those with chronic respiratory disorders? Might as well take up the cause of all instead of a select few...it's a lot more admirable than just sitting around trying to make noise.

[Joe Killian]

Sam:

I wasn't assigning those things to you, as I would think any fifth grader would be able to tell from context.

You asked why gay people seem to rally around their sexuality, make it central to their identity. I would answer that not only private individuals (though nice toss to Jerry Falwell) but the U.S. and many state governments and large American institutions discriminate against and actively persecute homosexuals based on their homosexuality.

The "they can serve as long as they don't let anyone know they are homosexual" argument is just plain ridiculous. One does not have to announce one's homosexuality to be tossed out of the armed forces - as literally hundreds of documented cases of men and women discharged for going to gay bars or clubs, signing up for gay dating services, appearing at movies with their partners or offering public displays of affection in places where heterosexuals would feel safe doing so attest.

So if you're gay and you don't hit on anyone in your unit, don't make anyone uncomfortable, don't ask for special treatment or housing, are a model soldier in every way...you can still be tossed like a criminal if anyone testifies they saw you holding hands with someone of the same sex or you don't secret this part of your life in a way we would never ask any heterosexual.

This is an indefensible standard.

That's what's being protested.

I think you're too smart not to get that - but you persist in missing it.

[Samuel Spagnola]

"...the U.S. and many state governments and large American institutions discriminate against and actively persecute homosexuals based on their homosexuality." Maybe, but not in the way you cited in three of your examples, and I don't think anyone is being "persecuted" in any case.

The military standard may be indefensible to you, but the mere fact that I may not agree entirely is not a reflection of my intelligence. If that is what you believe, then you are more arrogant and self-righteous than...(well, you know who). I don't think that's true about you, but I could be wrong.

I also did not claim that "gay people rally around their sexuality". I was referring to SOME gay people doing that. It is those SOME that I don't get. I also think it could be a little bit of the chicken and the egg- do they rally because they are discriminated against, or are they discriminated against because they rally? If the discrimination ended, would they still rally?

[Assistant Village Idiot]

See, if we had a longstanding tradition of publicly buggering defeated generals and despots, we could have solved this years ago.

[Lenslinger]

I served (ever so reluctantly) in the U.S. Navy and, while I agree that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is quite ludicrous, I can tell you from experience that the average shipboard sailor is either unwilling or unable to tolerate homosexuals on board. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's fair, but I'm telling you it's the truth. Maybe someday the military will get past this outdated machismo, but I truly doubt it.

You will hear many a military commander speak of 'unit cohesion' and the detrimental effects open homosexuality poses to it. Academics and activists may scoff at this notion, but there is some modicum of truth to it. Justified or not, this inability to deal with diverse sexuality in close quarters will probably preclude open homosexuals from serving onboard U.S. naval ships for a very long time.

Insipid? Yup. Misguided? Certainly. Infantile? You betcha. But in an organization whose sole purpose is to kill people, break shit and escape unscathed in the process...everything else - be it sexual rights or any other civil matter - is quite secondary. It's not a world view I wholly endorse, but even as a peacetime veteran, it's one I can understand.

[Roch101]

David,

You're right, I put words in your mouth. Still, if you think that "on the whole, gay men and women are more "in-your-face" about their sexuality than your run-of-the-mill hetero" and that that perceived behavior probalby has "some 'shrink'-defined explanation," I'll ask you to consider if homosexuals are really more "in your face" than the heterosexual examples I cited above.

[Roch101]

"No, Roch, I didn't miss the point- that WAS my point. I don't care about "flaunting sexuality" as you say. I think that Matt's problem is that his most important goal seems to be to let people know he's gay and make sure they don't forget it." -- Sam

Exactly, Sam. You did miss the point of the protest. I understand why you do so though. It allows you to pretend that Matt is insisting on promoting some egomaniacal self recognition, instead of fighting against the discrimination you alternately say doesn't exist or justify. It's a lot easier not to face your prejudices when you can dismiss what Matt does as "weird." But, we are getting to know a lot about you, Sam, and that's a good thing.

[Roch101]

Jeff,

What the hell are you talking about? You bemoan the breakdown of the family structure then offer up a "who knows what will happen" if "gay sex" becomes socially acceptable boogie man?

So, what's the deal? Are you saying gay sex is responsible for the breakdown of the family structure? It doesn't seem like it, because you offer its possible acceptance as a hypothetical.

You are saying that you think family structures should be stronger. What does that current state of families have to do with some future speculation about "gay sex?" Wouldn't your efforts be better directed if you addressed what has lead to the current state of families instead of some imagined future boogie man? Maybe you should try to get divorce outlawed, for example?

[Roch101]

"but I think it's just plain stupid to march because some private individual hurt your feelings or pissed you off..." -- Sam

Who is marching because some private individual hurt his feelings?