"Anyone familiar with American family and domestic law knows that the aims and policies and goals for protecting children, stability, best environment, etc. that I have been discussing, are all hallmarks of our civil family law and statutes, and all have to do with civil marriages and civil family law."

Wow, that's interesting. You'd think if that were TRUE, that they civil authorities in charge of issuing marriage licenses might be a bit more interested in the procreation plans of couples before they get married. I say again, I was not asked, nor have I ever been asked even ONE question about my plans for procreating with respect to the legal aspects of my marriage.

I say again, civil marriage does not require child bearing capability. If this is the case, what is your reason for excluding gay people. I'll give you a hint: "Gay people can't make children" is NOT an answer.

I need to address some illogical twisting that surfaced in your argument. The law does not require couples to prove they intend to have childen in order to qualify for marriage. Rather, the law's purpose of instituting marriage is that IF AND WHEN a straight couple reproduce, their offspring will be protected and raised in a committed two-gender role model environmental. By its civil marriage laws, society has made a value statement, which is: IF AND WHEN two straight people produce a baby, for the baby's sake we'd rather that the couple be committed in a married relationship. You don't logically disprove this by asserting that no marriage clerk ever tests a couple's willingness or intent to reproduce a baby.

But this once again shows the illogical inapplicability and nonsensibility of applying marriage to gay unions, who - once again let's say it all together now - can't procreate a baby.

Oh and one more thing, off the main subject:

To your use of the term "religious zealot" in an apparent negative connotation, I'm curious, are all persons of faith "religious zealots" to you? Do any and all opinion or idea or effort or cause is tied to religion, is it in your mind some kind of negatie "zealotry?"

Just curious.

A sentence in that last message is admittedly incoherent. I hastily typed it off and then got sidetracked on something else and did not review it berore clicking the send button. Here's re-edited version:

To your use of the term "religious zealot" in an apparent negative connotation, are all persons of faith "religious zealots" to you? Does any opinion, idea, effort or cause constitute some kind of negative "zealotry" in your mind if it tied to religion?

Just curious.

With the righteous outage against Republicans around the country and the current momentum, there is absolutely no chance for Buhler (a decent enough man) at this time in U.S. history.

No.

Politico,
I answered your questions earlier this afternoon and I thought my comment was posted. But for some reason it has now been taken down. I don't know why, because all I said was "No."

So, to answer your questions:

"To your use of the term "religious zealot" in an apparent negative connotation, are all persons of faith "religious zealots" to you?" No.

"Does any opinion, idea, effort or cause constitute some kind of negative "zealotry" in your mind if it tied to religion?" No.