On terminology

I would consider a policy to be pro-family if it encourages loving, stable households, possibly containing children. A policy would not be pro-family if it argued that some families meeting these criteria are less valid than others. A policy that directed some class of people to enter into "marriage" with people they simply had no biological interest in would not lead to particularly stable households, in my mind, and would in fact be anti-family.

Apparently our most basic laws are [being] dismantled by "activist" judges. Dammit, I hate it when the Militant Homosexual Lobby starts dropping soldiers in my house, killing people in the streets, and preventing good straight people from voting. Hmm, or maybe they aren't ruining our most basic laws after all.

Question for the informed: did Sciortino actually "disrupt" Mass, in the "interrupted the ceremony" sense? Did he "defile" the church with anything other than facing away from the altar, and potentially a kiss?

Article 8 has a remarkably pro-Sciortino article; you just need to read it in the right light. I'd start by removing the word "militant" (no indication any of his actions involved any sort of force) and "radical" (if pro-gay groups can get him to win a primary, can he be that far from center?). But once you do that, it's an interesting list of accomplishments in defense of his own beliefs, and fighting against discrimination.

Plus, Sciortino's not being a sore loser after what appears to be a perfectly fair primary election. I'm sorry you voted against your constituents' wishes on a charged issue, Mr. Ciampa; you might consider more seriously job-hunting.