M. Harris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The use of the word in the ad is a completely
> different meaning that today's usage, illustrating
> (among other things) how common words can be
> hijacked by limited-interest groups for their
> exclusive agendas.

While it's sad that the word "gay" has lost its original, innocent meaning, the contemporary gay agenda is to have the same rights as everyone else. As someone who has gay friends and professional colleagues, I agree with that agenda.

What is even sadder is how San Francisco and any politician representing that fine city has been demonized by "limited-interest groups" for an agenda more narrow-minded than Maine two-foot gauge railroad lines.

I've noticed, in general, that the same politicians who support gay rights are also more likely to support federal and state funding for Amtrak and mass transit. I have also noticed that those politicians who are hostile towards gay rights also tend to favor reduction of or elimination of state and federal funding for Amtrak and mass transit. Originally, former Senator Rick Santorum, who was obsessively opposed to gay rights, was an exception to this generalization with his support for Amtrak and mass transit. However, he too changed to fit this generalization by not using his considerable power to prevent Amtrak from discontinuing the Three Rivers in 2005.

Yup, I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with it) as Jerry Seinfeld said.