On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:11:01 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

What, pray tell, would a non-phobic reason be for supporting such a bill?
Spite? General orneryness?

Heartfelt religious conviction. Seperately, a desire not to change a
multicultural, multimillenial institution based on only a few years of
call for change. Also seperately, but in part, a desire not to have
the Federal government involved or complicit in State affairs. A few
other reasons.

Spite doesn't enter into any of it for huge segments of the
population. But your own apparant (apparant!) failure to come up with
any motivation other than malice for it really does suggest you
haven't listened at all to the reasons offered with any kind of open
mind.

However, they obviously must feel
threatened in some way, to feel that they need to regulate another person's
behavior even when that behavior has no effect on them.

....which is just the kind of demagoguery in evidence wherever the
epithet "homophobe" is tossed out. Can you prove that all the people
who oppose redefining "marriage" have fear of other real people at the
core of why they oppose it? Or do you merely buy a 35-year-old party
line that traditional moralities must a priori be discarded?

Rob, who supports a limited domestic partnership law