I wish I hadn't seen this one

Bring me more sand!

So I won't be seeing the likes of Jane Chastain.

It is impossible to protect traditional marriage while supporting "domestic partnerships" pushed by homosexual activists.

The U.S. Treasury has the responsibility for minting our coins and printing our money. What if Congress, the various federal agencies and our states suddenly decide to recognize counterfeit money as legal tender?

It would undermine the nation's monetary system and throw our economy into chaos.

That is exactly what is happening with traditional marriage.

What, in the name of holy matrimony has one got to do with the other?

We need to go back and re-examine the two original reasons for marriage. The first is to have the union recognized by God. The second is to have the union recognized by the state.

Since homosexual acts are condemned by the sacred writings of all the world's major religions, the attempt to have these unions sanctioned by the church is an attempt to "feel good" at best.

I haven't found in her article - and I may be mistaken, but I wasn't aware of it being included in the proclamation making this "Marriage Protection Week" (rolleyes) - something that says there is an attempt to have same sex unions sanctioned by the church. (By the way - what does she mean "the" church?)

Let's look at reason No. 2: Society long has recognized that a committed relationship between a man and a woman is the best environment to produce and nurture productive citizens for the future. Research has shown that children fare far better with a mother and a father who are married to each other, even if the marriage isn't perfect.

I cry foul on this one, you dolt Ms. Chastain. Reference that research, please. But let's have a look at the subtlety which you may or may not have intended: "productive citizens for the future". Is that what we want for our kids? That's a nice Republican Family Value, I realize, but it's not mine. I'd prefer producing socially responsible, humane and creative human beings, thanks.

Homosexual-rights activists want to change the definition of marriage from a union between one man and one woman to a union between any two or more people living together in a "committed" relationship. That could apply to almost anything from a couple of roommates to a college basketball team.

A college basketball team doesn't live together.

For many years, our federal, state and local governments recognized the obvious: It costs money to raise children. By legalizing unions between a man and a woman, the government was able to put a "hedge of protection" around traditional marriage and to give the partners in these unions certain rights that went along with their responsibilities to the family unit.

Are you beginning to see the problem? If everyone is allowed inside the hedge, than the hedge, for all practical purposes, ceases to exist.

Yes, I think I am beginning to see the problem. You are talking out of your ass. Explain please the issue of the cost of raising children as it applies to "hedges" and gay marriages. If there are no children in a marriage, hetero- or homo-sexual, there will be no financial "rights", attached to having children, nested in the hedge. And if there are children - in either union - then there will be those rights. Childless unions - outside hedge. Families with children - inside hedge. What's your point?

Research has shown that children in intact married families are much less likely to be poor. They attain higher levels of education and have lower rates of substance abuse, emotional and psychological problems, out-of-wedlock births and criminal behavior.

Again, let's have those references. Just your saying it doesn't make it so. But, even if those findings are supported, what is your evidence that these results are not due to the "hedges" that exist, both direct and indirect, in American society which favor the two-parent hetero system?

You simply cannot elevate these homosexual unions without lowering the protection placed around the traditional family.

In your twisted mind, perhaps. Where's the research?

Okay, if I can rant about stuff I know nothing about, so can Ms. Chastain. And in the words of General Bonehead Boykin, I "sincerely" apologize for calling her a dolt. This is the problem with blogging. You have to admit at some point that it's all subjective. I do admit that. But I still say this woman is missing a few important bits that a columnist ought to keep handy.

And it was my understanding that marriage as a state (or church) sanctioned insitution was enacted to give men rights to women's property.

....but hey, you believe what you want....you will anyway....