I ____________ support calling upon TIME Magazine to check Dobson's facts on lesbian and gay parenthood. Soulforce and other organizations have repeatedly documented Dobson's misleading statements about the research on LGBT families. In the interest of journalistic integrity, publications such as TIME must contextualize his statements with evidence from credible, peer-reviewed research.

The address is: letters@time.com

On the off-chance that you will read this or even care, I must apologize for the misunderstanding and my tempermental arrogance. The fact is that I agree with you about gay rights- about all human rights. The only quarrel I have is over jurisdiction, and how it applies to seperating the sticky confluence of church, state, and democratic rule that is marriage.

You are- if I am to believe you, which I have no reason not to- obviously on a much higher level of education and experience than I am. In fact, it was a fitting irony that you should rebuff my crack about community college, seeing as I have no undergraduate diploma and have in fact taken a business law class at CCPhilly. I moved around a good bit as a child and so have cultivated an outsider mentality, one I usually consider an asset when approaching new problems or ideas.

I can however admit when my youth, inexperience, and/or less-than-formal education become a liability, as clearly the case here. The legal experience aside however, I still wonder about the question of your rights, freedoms and privileges vs. those of everyone else. I will certainly conceed the point of tax benefits for two people who are making a commitment to live together for the rest of their lives. There are obvious and proven benefits to society when any two people live together- it is simply more efficient and should be rewarded. When it comes to children and same sex families I would point out that when a man or woman marries someone who already has kids, they still have to adopt the children to have legal authority over them.

I would like to say here that this is why I enjoy Salon so much- and that it was truly exciting to have my ass handed to me like that, via your post- because it is the difficult challenges that you learn the most from. I spent the weekend starting and re-starting to respond to you, but at every turn I found no quarrel other than your insistance on the harsh labels of 'gaybasher' 'racist' and 'mysoginist'. I would say that if there is anything you must concede it is the absolutism and emotion in your responses. As a wise man once said, 'Only the Sith deal in absolutes'. There is middle ground, there are good people who, like me or worse, don't know enough about these issues to make the right judgement. I can imagine that you enjoy the freedom to express yourself openly and emotionally, after having to circumscribe yourself for so long in the establishment, but it is less helpful to others. You also make arguments for the ideal- not the reality- ignoring history and the painfully slow pace of progress. I do not fault you for this but again, it is less helpful.

It is undeniable that this democracy was founded on the ideals of freedom, by men who could not hope to realize those ideals. They braved their hypocrisy, trusting in their nation to achieve what they could not- freedom and justice for all. And we have come very close to it, gay-rights being one of the last bastions of intolerance and discrimination.

Still though, I haven't been able to reconcile the question of balance between your rights, privileges, and freedoms- and everyone else's. The commerce clause is the biggest sticking point in my argument, but I refuse to beleive that the solution must be absolute, that there is no middle ground. Gay rights activists who insist on the term 'marriage' ignore the history of this nation asp is the passion Christians feel when it comes to marriage and homosexuality, and that in their eyes, the history and tradition of this country seem to support their position. None of that makes them right or just, but in a democratic society, where do you draw the line between your freedom to marry and enjoy full rights thereof, and their rights NOT to recognize your union as marriage according to their beleifs? Is it simply economic, as the commerce clause and tax code implies? Can their be a compromise between federal and state policies that do not overlap too much and still provide the greatest possible freedoms and rights for both sides? Would a federal requirement in all areas outside of the public interest, such as visitation rights and immigration policy be acceptable to both parties? I don't know.

Any insight would be appreciated, and though I won't be able to provide any kind of fee for you- you would have my gratitude however, and you already have my apology.

-Regards

1. Ask Republican how Mary conceived and how Republican feels about that.

2. Ask Republican which church Mary and partner should raise their child; or, which church will even allow them.

3. Ask Republican if Republican can name any states where Mary's partner will have legal parental rights should the child ever need medical attention, for instance.

4. Ask Republican to quote Scripture regarding Mary and partner's relationship and status as parents.

5. Ask Republican to define "irony."

6. Offer to remove the stick from Republican's ass. Kindly hand stick back to Republican. Now Republican grasps (he he) the full meaning of "getting the shitty end of the stick."

Someone asked what the religious right's response to Ms. Cheney's pregnancy; Via the Daou Report (linked to David Corn's website)

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/12/a_question_for_1.php

COLORADO SPRINGS, Dec. 8 /Christian Newswire/ -- Mary Cheney, the Vice President's unmarried daughter, is expecting. Dr. Paul Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado Springs think-tank, condemned her decision:

"Unmarried women should not deliberately have children. Their children are more apt to experience privation and disruption. Consequently, such children are more apt to do poorly in school, disrupt society (e.g., engage in criminality), and be personally troubled. These wrongs are compounded when the child is brought into a homosexual setting."

"By this selfish action, Cheney is not merely disrupting society, she is being cruel to her child:

* Mary, 37, is currently 'partnered' with Heather Poe, 45. The median age of death for lesbians is around the late 50's. If Poe and Cheney stay together, odds are this child will lose at least one caretaker before graduating high school.

* Children of homosexuals testify that day-to-day living is more difficult – and they are more apt to report personal disturbance as a consequence.

* A high proportion of lesbian 'partnerings' break apart -- with custody issues haunting the child for the rest of his life.

* The child will disproportionately associate with homosexuals ‚ who are as a class considerably more apt to have STDs and a criminal history, be interested in sex with children, involved in substance abuse, etc.

* The child will have a much higher probability of learning homosexual tastes (at least a third of lesbian's children adopt homosexuality).

* "Her pregnancy is further evidence that participation in homosexual activity distorts value systems, inducing practitioners to harm the commonweal. Our society already has too many children born without the benefits of marriage; Cheney's action is not only a bad example, but poor treatment of an innocent child."

So I guess that answers the question of whose being "meaner" to Ms. Cheney - Salon or her fellow Republicans?