Thank you!

"I'm totally grossed out by all you people you disappointed the one thing that should matter most to you" Try constructing a legible sentence first so your education does not bleeding through so much.

Take your nose out of the bible and realize that people are people, no matter who they love!!!

Ever hear of separation of church and state. Marriage is not exclusively a religious ceremony. I am so happy it passed!

Are you aware that King David, the ancestor of Jesus Christ, not only had multiple wives and concubines, but also engaged in an extramarital affair which eventually produced King Solomon? And the women in the Bible were property, who were exchanged for land and livestock, not self guiding individuals and citizens. And Jesus himself recommended celibacy as preferred to marriage? So much for traditional biblical marriage...I'm so tired of other Christians (yes, I am a Christian) who haven't spent enough time learning about the MAJOR contradictions about marriage in the bible, instead saying that there is only one single biblical marriage definition. No one is changing the Bible, plenty of folks already did that during the first centuries it existed. You can have whatever opinion you want about gay marriage, but quit pretending the Bible is clear on this issue.

How are we "chang[ing] the bible"? NOTHING is changing!! That's the point. We are leaving the Constitution (and the bible) as they are, not changing anything. It's people like you, that don't seem, to understand the issues, who want to impose their will on others...shame on you, this is America, and this country was founded, in part, on the principle that religion should not be forced on the people.

ryan lawn, you do realize that the word "marriage" was not actually a word in the bible? That this is the translated word from older languages that were translated and retranslated and translated again before the book EVER made it to English. How do you know Jesus meant "marriage"? How do you know he didn't say, "partnerships with equal benefits"? You're fighting over a word that didn't even exist when the bible was written.

The amendment addresses civil law, which has nothing to do with the Bible.
Jews and liberal Christians, including Episcopalians, some Lutherans and Episcopalians, not to mention Atheists, ALL support same sex marriage; why should your narrow interpretation of the Bible be codified in our state Constitution, effectively establishing religion in our state? Why should YOU and your religious confreres get to tell people of other religious faiths how they should follow their own religious beliefs?

Actually, marriage is a LEGAL term.

Thank you Ryan, I could not have said it better. How dare they change God's words in the Bible.It's Jack and Jill not Tom and harry nor Mary and Jane, you people are gross and you will be punish in the end.

Well said, Ryan. People just don't understand what Marriage is anymore. I have considering moving out of this state because of these jokers. I'm not against gay people either, but people need to get a clue and stop trying to redifine things that they have no authority to decide in the first place!

Please keep your book out of my government....we the people have won a very important vote. No Shireah law, no Jewish law, no Christian law, no Buddhist law, no Hindu law, no Sik law, no nadda religion mixed with our government laws!!!!!!!. So happy....get over it, the end of the reign of the Christian white "man" is over.

Lucille, I believe it is people that share your views are exactly why the amendment failed, and why President Obama will have four more years....thank you, Lucille, it seems that your intolerance is what brought people out voting. Minnesotans will not stand for it any longer. Keep your religion to yourself. Trying to force on others will backfire!

Jacob, NOTHING has been changed! Sadly, it remains status quo, but we are now one step closer to allowing our gay friends and family to be married. They deserve the same protections and benefits under law as those couples who are currently married. Minnesotans understand the importance of equality and we care about ALL of our residents.

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

to mike: Take your own message to heart and learn how to construct proper sentence.

Take. A. PILL! So according to you, any word used in the bible is sacred. Right?! So, I am ashamed of you using the word "should"! How dare you use the word "should", did you create it?! I'm totally grossed out by you!

No one is changing your bible - you've done that yourself, already, unless you support: a father selling his young daughters into marriage; polygamy; the death penalty for any woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night; fathering children with the servants.
We are talking about civil marriage only; no church would be required to officiate at or even to recognize same sex marriages.

Joyce has been clear that she objects to anyone "imposing" his views on others. She should extend the same courtesy to others in this forum by not presuming to interpret their scriptures - scriptures that she has been pretty clear she does not honor as anything more than literature. It appears to me that her most recent comments reveal a poor understanding of how Jewish and Christian moral doctrine works. Please withhold expansive opinions on things you don't understand.

I meant to say that I am glad we voted no...whoops!

God also wants us to live the way he intended. He also defined marriage. The Bible will still remain the same as it was yesterday, today and will never change. God is a solid rock. He defined marriage, NOT US! The fact that this state didn't pass the amendment just goes to show how little respect and integrity people have. Marriage is ONLY between 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN, says GOD.

Jacob, what does God have to do with our Constitution?

Jacob. There are 8 types of marriage in the bible. Most include more than two people.

And yet we allow people of all faiths or no faith to get married every day. Our laws are based on a constitution that requires equal treatment for all persons. The bible can be used to justify all sorts of harm, including genocide. This is why we require equal rights rather than using the bible to determine who we punish and who we support under the law.

Jacob, are you claiming that Christian marriages should be the only valid marriages in our state? Should the Hindus, Buddhists, Shamanists and Animists who live here be required to have Christian marriages?
Your version of God did not define marriage; civil marriage is part of civil law and has nothing to do with religious dogma.

Oh yeah, so if we go by the BIBLE then divorce should be illegal too, should'nt it, ifmarriage is to sacred. There is also NO PLACE in the bible where it signals that a gay coulple can't be married. Also, do you think the bible is THE ONLY religon in the world? Besides, gay coulples won't get the same rights unless they are married. And how would any gay or lesbian couple being married ever effect MY marriage. It does'nt change it, or make it less sacred. It is just 2 more people who love each other, and if you can't appreciate that- Ryan, then you are the gross one.

That would be You're not Your and you do know that same sex couples still cannot marry in Minnesota. It's just not in the constitution--which should actually never be changed in my opinion. Since it is about the children, maybe we should take children away from single parents. And women who have children out of wedlock should have them immediately put up for adoption to a heterosexual couple who signs a paper that says they will lose the child should they ever divorce. Do you even listen to yourself--casting stones?

What does greed have to do with this? And what young children? That's a typical argument, to blame your own discomfort on children. Who mostly don't care.

As to any concern about "confusing children", kids deal with pluralism quite well. Think of religious diversity. Many children are taught to believe their family's religion. Then they have to go to school, or meet a neighbor, and learn that other belief systems exist too. It may feel confusing at times, but that's the way the real world is and many kids grow to respect (and perhaps even appreciate) such diversity while maintaining their own beliefs. Childlren are not thrown into utter confusion by realizing that others see things differently than their folks.

Nothing has been done, everything remains the same. It's no wonder there were so many who actually voted for this thing. It seems they have no understanding about the amendment.

If I come before God when I die, I am sure he will recognize love, tolerance, and equality to be virtuous qualities.

I don't believe it is, but even if it is a sin our sins are forgiven. The bible says many things. It also says to treat your neighbors as you would like to be treated. It is not our role to determine what a sin is or is not. That is God's role.

What's next? Are you going to lobby for sharia religious legal system?

Save your prayers Terrance until you can actually learn from them and be inspired to be a kinder person. Your arrogence may need more forgiveness than my tolerance and kindness toward the stranger.

If you want to keep church out of government then why was there even a vote on the definition of marriage? Keep the church out of government..abide by your definition.

This was a huge win for Minnesotans, we'll get there. We now have a majority in house, senate, and Dayton in the mansion. We'll get a marriage admendment on the next ballot. Republicans think they can force their social agenda down our throats. Live free or die.

Because our system suddenly decided that all comments on this article needed to be hand-approved and didn't tell me. Sorry for the delay!

No problem, I was just wondering if I had crossed the line with what I wrote. Thanks for 'fixing' it.

English and Irish people asking why the US has become so "gay"?

Really? That's hysterical...

It's satire, Mike.

I guess I wasn't very clear in those recent comments, which is the likely result of two hours of sleep last night. I voted no and have been opposed to the marriage amendment all along. I was basically prodding all the fear mongers who used many of those ridiculous scare tactics while trying to influence voters. I don't feel any of those things will happen after this amendment fortunately failed last night. How sad that some of those amendment supporters used such asinine logic.

Because that's all they have left - they are losing the gay marriage debate and losing it faster than they thought and all they can do is throw out whatever they can think up - but it isn't working any longer..

Minnesota became the first state to reject a Constitutional Amendment on the issue.

Two States had their Voters pass gay marriage last night and a third is likely to pass - just awaiting the final count.

All they have left is screaming, calling names, stomping their feet and acting in a most Un-Christian way, it really is sad to see - I suppose it was this way with mixed race marriage, blacks voting, desegregation, etc... the hate simply becomes more and more heated until they finally realize what reality is....

How is this greed? And why is a school teaching the subject of marriage? Absolutely ridiculous comment.

Ryan - re-read your comment and then tell me who isn't thinking of others. Again, nothing has changed. The amendment would have been a change. Voting No kept a change from happening.

With all due respect, the rights of the GLBT community trump your child's perception of marriage.

As a parent you have an awesome opportunity to give your daughter a Civics lesson on how American works at election time.

You can teach her that not everyone agrees with everything she is taught in school and church and that sometimes when people differ there is a "Vote" and when people Vote - one side wins and other side loses.

Note this comment. Chew on it: "With all due respect, the rights of the GLBT community trump your child's perception of marriage."

The right to pass on your beliefs to your children are now subject to the political will of the state.

I would be happy to help you to explain to your 10 year old daughter that what she has been reading on the internet, the newspaper and from her friends is a complicated subject with a lot of tradition and passion on both sides. What she heard in your church is right for your family and your religious tradition and is protected by the US constitution. God also created gay people and the constitution also protects the rights of other churches to marry gay people if they chose to. Hope that helps. Very young children are capaple of empathy toward others.

Thank you Mike Hindin for providing an excellent example of an intolerant attitude devoid of humility.

Civil discussion requires just enough humility to consider that your views might not be quite right, and that other people's views may be valid, and in any case, I have no right to force mine on you.

I guess in this case, that rule does not apply. I do not have a right to teach my daughter what I consider right from wrong. The State dictates what is right and wrong.

Nobody's preventing you from teaching your daughter anything, Donald. It's the discrimination that gets a little dicey. You might want to throw in a lesson about tolerance. Better yet, have someone else who can speak from experience deliver that message.

Donald Lee obviously didn't read my comments since I showed how the constitution protected his church's right to determine membership and rules for marriage, defended his families right to believe and practice according to his faith, and that other churches should have the same right to marry gay couples. What is intolerant about that? His way or no way?

Ryan, I have 3 children. Contrary to all the fear mongering that was part of the "Vote Yes" campaign ads, they have had no trouble comprehending, or being confused by LGBT marriage. Being a parent is a great responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to allow her to see the reality of the world, not shield her from it and pretend the world is the idyllic place you would like it to be. Part of that responsibility is explaining to her the things she sees, but doesn't understand. Part of that responsibility is explaining the difference between what you believe is right, and what is wrong. Part of that responsibility is to teach her the reality that the world is not going to, and more importantly should not be forced to conform to you, especially your religious beliefs. And last, but certainly not least, one of the greatest responsibilities is to teach her personal responsibility. That you, as her father are personally responsible for her upbringing, and that the rest of the world, and their behavior, is not. The notion that closed minded legislation with the intent to impose Christianity on the Pagan hordes, needs to be passed just so you don't have to do what you are ultimately responsible for, is ridiculous. I would love to come over and clarify my position to your daughter, but I think you would have a much more difficult time understanding it than her. Stop trying to blame everyone else for her confusion, and take personal responsibility for her upbringing.

I agree with everybody here. Also, if you care about your child's education, you might want to work on your vocabulary and your grammar. What on earth does greed have to do with anything?

Parents will always be able to discuss their own views with their children. The fact that children may also hear differnt viewpoints from people other than their parents doesn't detract from this. Might children decide on their own that their parents' view of the world is wrong? Yes!

No problem. You do your job as a loving parent and explain to her that what she learned on church is right for your church and your family. Also explain that there are other people who believe differently and act differently according to the religious freedom guaranteed by our constitution. I would volunteer but that would undermine your parenting role. Your daughter is smart enough to have figured that out already butit would be a good lesson to hear from you.

That was a compromise I was also comfortable with, Ryan, but nobody on the other side seemed willing to step up and propose something like that as long as marriage remained something that requires a license issued by the state rather than a strictly religious sacrament. It also should be noted that many pushing to defeat this amendment and those who will also be pushing for gay marriage would not be satisfied with what you suggested on the basis that it is not true equality. For me, I would just want to see the rights and privileges available to gay and straight couples align regardless of what you call the union.

The problem is that when gay people originally sought Civil Unions - Conservatives came out against Civil Unions and told them "No" you can't have marriage and you cannot have "Civil Unions".

Even now many Conservatives still oppose the concept of Civil Unions for gay people...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/romney-advisor-argues-against-civil-unions-in-gop-platform-likens-homosexuality-to-drug-use/

"During a Tuesday morning meeting of the Republican National National Convention Platform, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach expressed his opposition to a platform amendment that would have allowed for “civil unions” by likening homosexuality to drug use and polygamy."

Of course once gay marriage started looking more and more likely suddenly Conservatives had a "change of heart" and some started saying that Civil Unions are a great idea - just leave the marriage thing alone.

I would support taking Marriage out the scope of the Government all together - you can get "Married" only in a church but it has no effect in law - if you want a legally binding arrangement with the benefits of tax status - then both homosexuals and heterosexuals would have to enter into a Civil Union.

I completely agree with Rob. Take the government out of "marriage" - all people who wish to join are in civil unions which they can have blessed as a marriage by a church or synagogue or whatever other institution they wish.

Otherwise Ryan, what you suggest is illegal. Brown vs Board of Education, long time ago, said separate but equal under the law does not work and does not guarantee equal treatment in all cases. In this case, different words could cause some things like tax laws, end of life processes, child custody, etc. to be done differently depending on the person making the decisions and that just won't work.

You don't GIVE people rights. They own the rights.

Rush Limbaugh is working on his third. You can currently do so serially but not in parallel.

We changed our cultural view of marriage in 1967 when we said prohibitions on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional. We changed it when we said women were not property, but equal partners. It has evolved over time and place.

But treating gay people equally under the law does not require any changes to the laws or social dynamics for straight people. Polygamy would require changing those laws in a wide variety of ways, as well as changing the social dynamics for straight people. Polygamy is not equal, and the harm it causes is the reason it is not legally recognized. It is something very different, and therefore a very different argument than allowing gay people to participate under the rules currently in effect.

That tolerance is apparently not extended to the more traditional faiths. Beliefs are OK, as long as they don't include God. If they do, they are excluded from the public square.

Only those trying to force their beliefs on others, Donald. If there is a backlash against God and religion it most certainly started with the intolerance they have shown to others who don't feel the same way.

Just to be clear, it is far better that the marriage amendment failed than passed. As I indicated, I would have been happy with a compromise that, at minimum, extended legal and tax benefits regardless of the terminology used, but what occurred on Tuesday night is just a bonus. At the end of the day this will be similar to conceal and carry when that was implemented and folks thought Minnesota was going to turn into the wild west. This amendment passing and even legalizing gay marriage if the legislature acts on that, will do virtually nothing to change the lives of most Minnesotans. The ones who are impacted directly will be better off because of it.

Ryan, you're not texting, please use some capitals and punctuation so we can understand what it is that you are trying to say. As it is, it looks like the ramblings of an angry adolescent.

BTW, you can't "hear" the typed word...unless you have an app for that.

Yes, Ryan pretty soon we will have people marrying fish if we allow gay men to marry today.

Ryan, I wasn't picking on you, hating you, or being a hypocrite, I was just having a hard time following what you were trying to say. Your entire message was getting lost. Haven't you ever heard that old saying about capitalization and punctuation?

It's the difference between:

helping your uncle jack off a horse
and
Helping your Uncle Jack off a horse.

Calm down, I know you're frustrated, but let's not see demons around every corner.

On what?

Ryan wrote: "I'm not frustrated I'm not the one that said anything hateful on here or anything insulting."

Ryan, you have said we don't get it, are hateful, hypocrites, running our mouths, greedy, and insulting.....sure, Ryan, WE'RE the ones that are here insulting others. Are you even reading what you write?

The people have spoken, the Republicans wanted the vote. Get over it!

Ryan, perhaps a bit of attention to your spelling and punctuation would go a long way to dispel the commonly held belief that Christian Conservatives are uneducated illiterates.

Insults are as much in the eye of the beholder as the mouth of the sayer. You may think that something like calling gays "sinners" (not saying you did, but many do) is just "fact" whereas those individuals it is being directed at may find it quite insulting and false. So, I've only read a few of your comments, but as a straight person, I can say that I HAVE found several of the things you say to be insulting, so just try to keep that in mind.

Shouldn't the history you refer to have some foundation in fact? I'm not that one who tried to pass off 1940 as modern society. Just admit you used a poor example try and prove your point and most of us will still respect you in the morning.

Well, jesus guzman, that would be relevant, if the Bible were our code of law. It is not.

Leviticus says a lot of crazy, outdated, irrelevant things. Wearing clothing of mixed fibers? ABOMINATION!
Also, as the lady said, the bible is not the law of the land. In fact, it's illegal to make it so. :)

IMHO if homosexuality was so vital then God would have put it in the 10 Commandment where He put things like "Adultery" (which so far I don't see any attempt to ban it in a Amendment with some serious criminal penalties).

Given that God is Omnipotent instead of the 10 Commandments - perhaps He could have handed down the 11 Commandments and put in something about homosexuals...

Or, perhaps Jesus could have preached on this most vital of problems but yet apparently He thought other topics were more worthy of His time.

How about if start with the 10 Commandments and then live up to what Jesus taught - then once we get that under our belt we start digging further into the Bible?

It sounds like you are being the judge stating it is wrong. God loves everyone and you are not an example of that!

Republicans really need to have the courage of their conviction and when asked about Abortion - they should stand up proudly and tell everyone that there should be no exceptions in cases of rape and incest and the only exception would be when the woman is about to die - and stand by that - don't shy away and play word games.

Also, don't shy away from telling the people what should happen to the women, doctors and everyone involved in the abortion - should they be tried for the murder of those innocent babies? (Hopefully they won't just let them walk away from murdering an innocent baby).

And then tell everyone what should happen to the children born to poor women that the government forces - does everyone just say "Hallelujah" and then walk away if the child is hungry, homeless, sick and say "Hey, its up to the parent now, we did our job" or do you tell Society "Step up, we forced the issue so we cannot walk away now from what we demanded"?

The thing that irritates me about prolife people is that even if abortion and birthcontrol wasn't legal, people would still find illegal ways to do it that would be unhealthy and even dangerous. Plus, there are times when it would be better to have an abortion, like in incest and when its threatening the mother's life. What about rape? Oh yes, lets expect a mother who is pregnant with her rapist's child to endure nine months of torture and mental abuse. If you get knocked up because you screwed up and didn't use protection or kept your legs closed, that's on you and you should take responsibility for that, not get in an abortion. In those three exceptions, however, I believe it should be down to the mother and father's choice.

Jessa - IMHO - if someone is truly Pro-Life and believes that abortion is murder then there can be no exceptions except to save the life of the mother.

Otherwise, what someone would be saying is that in some cases it is ok to murder an innocent child - and I think that when it is looked at from a real Pro-Life perspective, if they are honest - they cannot make exceptions because murdering an innocent child is murdering an innocent child and if that is what someone believes how can they possibly say "Ok, in these cases murder is acceptable"?

Now the reason some make the exception is to appear "reasonable" but then they aren't really Pro-Life - they are "Sort of Pro-Life".

Rob-h78, I personally believe that in some cases, murderer is acceptable. Like with child rapists, people like Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and Bin Laden. Those people deserve to die a long and painful death. I am not prolife because I believe in those three exceptions, abortion should be a choice. Besides that, people will still get abortions or attempt to have miscarriages and that could kill both the woman and baby.

>>> Jessa Kliewer

I have no problem with certain people being put to death for actions that they have taken, however, from a Pro-Life perspective an unborn child is completely innocent and has committed no crime or affront to humanity that could possibly warrant being murdered.

Personally, I am Pro-Choice because I don't think that the government should tell women what to do with their bodies (I suppose if pressed I could start to become squishy on the topic when the child can survive outside of the womb) and because like you outlawing abortion won't make it go away, it will just move "under-ground".

But, if someone is Pro-Life then I don't see how they can make exceptions for rape and incest unless they are ready to argue that those "murders" in their eyes are acceptable and then I would like to hear that justification.

IMHO - I think that Pro-Choice people let Pro-Life people "off the hook" when they throw out these exceptions.

They aren't let off in my perspective. I mean, I'm leaning more toward the 'if you are stupid and don't use protection, take responsibility for your actions and raise your child' area with abortion. I mean there are other options like adoption and everything.

Rob, no, the government should not be telling women what to do with their bodies. What is not being explained is that pro-life people, like myself, do not believe that the unborn baby is part of the woman's body. The baby is in her body, not part of it. Human beings do not reproduce by splitting like an amoeba or by shedding body parts. The baby has its own body, and is an innocent life that must be protected by the government if its own mother refuses to protect it.

Nick - I do believe that the unborn is a separate being in many ways however, until it can survive outside of the woman's body it is still "part" of the woman's body - and I know plenty of Pro-Life people who believe that.

But that still doesn't change my mind that the Government should be able to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion - at least for the first trimester.

I think we should do all we can to reduce the number of abortions: wider use of contraception (Conservatives should stop the Social Battle against it), more support after birth for poor mothers (yes, that may mean higher taxes), etc...

If the government can force a woman to bear a child - then the same government should bear some responsibility for helping if the mother needs help (Responsibility cuts both ways).

Most Pro-Choice people I know are willing to compromise and don't believe in abortion all the way to delivery.

Nick (continued)

What would you (and the Pro-Life) community be willing to compromise on?

Or do you want an all or nothing? (Being to literally make abortion illegal in all cases either after conception - or the first heartbeat (your preference, except to save the life of the mother).

I think that you do offer some compromise as you believe in the morning after pill and don't define life until the heart starts beating - however, much of (perhaps most?) and certainly the most vocal members of the Pro-Life Community are not in agreement with you - they believe that life beings at the moment of conception (which would be my viewpoint if we want to discuss when "life" begins) and that even the morning after pill is murder.

So, the discussion (IMHO) that Pro-Life people such as yourself need to have is first inside the Pro-Life community to get them to at least move to your position - and then come to the larger society and start to discuss this as a compromise position.

If there is no room for any compromise from the Pro-Life side (and from a Pro-Life belief, I can completely understand that there cannot be compromise) but without that - then yes, the Pro-Life side will have a political war on its hands because it "Literally" is an all or nothing strategy by one side.

Rob, how does one know when a baby is able to survive outside of the mother? That could be vastly different depending on where in the world the mother lives. A viable fetus in the US is probably not going to be viable fetus in Afghanistan or Zimbabwe. The right to life should not be dependent on the country the mother lives in. African or Middle-Eastern babies have just as much a right to life as American ones.

My opinion is that if the baby has a heartbeat that is pumping into a closed circulatory system with a blood type that can be different than the mother's, then that baby is a separate person, and therefore needs to be afforded equal protection under the law. How can the same person have 2 different circulatory systems and blood types? That makes no logical sense.

I cannot speak for the Pro-Life community as a whole, but I think my position is clear, concise, is easy to define, lacks "gray area", is without a lot of exceptions and complications, and has some compromise that I think is fair. The morning-after pill is perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. I don't believe life begins at conception.

If somehow, I could call a meeting of all Pro-Lifers and hash this out with them, I would do it tomorrow. I think it would be a great step in the right direction. I actually have never had a discussion on this with another Pro-Life person. Only Pro-Choice people. They usually understand my logic, but are reluctant to abandon their position.

Nick, the two things that give me pause about your position are that some women don't know they are pregnant before the heart starts beating, and we know what the consequences will be if we again make abortion illegal. These are the things that make me reluctant to change my position.

Agreed. My comments were predicated upon medical technology in the US. I'll leave other countries and societies to debate the issue within their society.

I agree that you have a clear, concise and easy to state position that would allow a bright line from which a discussion between the two sides can take place. I think I'll bring up your points when I next discuss the issue with Pro-Life family members to see how they view it as a possible compromise.

However, for Republicans running for the Presidency who want to discuss abortion from the majority Pro-Life position (if they don't want to hedge) they will have to come out against abortion from the moment of conception (or it simply won't satisfy the majority of the Pro-Life people and certainly won't satisfy the most vocal).and I believe that that is a position that will lose them too many people that they need to be able to win.

Pandering to the most vocal is not usually the best strategy, which is why the GOP can't seem to win. It is best to appeal to the silent majority. This is where effective communication would come in handy.

I respecfully submit that your religiouis beliefs are perfect for you. the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees your church's right to determine its membership and marriage rules. It also guarantees thatt your church and the government stay out of mine. In addtion the equal protection clause of the US Constitution will be found to also require equal protection to gay couples who wish to marry. Don't blame "liberal or activist " judges, the US Constitution (with the exception of the slavery compromise) is the most liberal document in the modern world. King George and the Tories were the ultra right wing transnational corperation.

Jessa,
The separation of Church and State means that the State is not supposed to come into the Christians churches and tell them how they can or can't preach the word. We as christians arent messed up we know and believe the Word of God as truth and I will be praying that you come to know the truth as well.

Kingskid, separation of church and state also means that the state cannot impose the religious beliefs of some on everyone; it means that Catholics and conservative Christians cannot tell members of other religions and people with no religion which couples can legally marry under civil law.

"The natural use of a woman".....are you kidding me? "The bible has been around since god created the world"?......so, you are saying that the bible was written 4.5 billion years ago? Why can't Christans just have their faith amongst themselves, and leave out the prosthelytizing....it just makes fools of them. I am one who believes that spirituality is very personal, and find it offensive when other's try to push their beliefs on me.

"The natural use of a woman"...

I'm thinking that I shouldn't use this line of discussion with my girlfriend - even if it is Biblical...

But please - email the RNC and demand that they include this in their Party's Platform because that will surely help them regain the female vote...

Jesus
Amen to what you said back to the comment that Jessa had left. I believe we need to speak up for what is right even though people may come against us. They came against Jesus when he spoke the truth because they didn't want to hear it.

So what did Jesus say about homosexuals and marriage?

Problem is, no matter your interpretation of David's relationship with Jonathan, or anything else the Bible says, it cannot have direct influence on our secular laws, which govern people of all faiths. As a thousand posts have already said, you cannot use the Bible as the justification for our laws. There are certain things in the Bible, like "Thou shalt not kill," which provide good governance because people and societies outside of Christian/Jewish community also recognize that if we go around murdering each other it doesn't make for good community. However, on the issue of marriage, there have been MANY MANY forms of marriage and different ways of forming unions between people for all of human history, so you can't just say that Biblical texts guide all marriage (in fact, those who argue against homosexuality because of the "slipper slope" to polygamy, you should reread the stories of David... separate from his relationship, whatever it was, with David, he had MANY wives, concubines AND an extramarital affair which eventually results in the great king Solomon. Maybe we SHOULD advocate for all of that because clearly it was not just David who had these types of marriages...so much for "traditional" marriage blessed by God.)

The age of the "Christian Male" isn't "over" in the general sense, however, it is shrinking in importance in national elections, the Non-Christian Male demographics are simply growing much faster and the share of the Christian Male vote is simply growing smaller with each election cycle.

Christian Males, in particular "White Christian Males" have had an awesome run maintaining power in the United States however, the tide is turning with demographics and just watch Foxnews, listen to Limbaugh and others for the resulting discussion that they are having with their audience, some of it isn't pretty at all...

Kingskid, no one that I know wants to get rid of Christianity, we simply don't what religious beliefs forced on everyone in the form of legislation. Your faith is YOURS and should not be forced on others.

As the Republican Party stands, they are indeed showing that they feel the white, heterosexual, Christian male is the priority. You need look no farther than the party leaders. Women feel that Conservatives are trying to push the "no sex before marriage" idea on everyone. Although this would be the best way to stop unwanted pregnancies, it is not a reality. You cannot stop people from having sex!. Because of this, I would think your party would embrace birth control as it does reduce the number of abortions, but instead, you fight for something that is unattainable...abstinence.

As soon as the Republicans understand that they cannot force their morals (and religion) on others, then they will again become relevant. Embrace birth control (you dont have to use it) and you will see a shift. Tolerate homosexuals - in other words, live and let live, and you won't appear so self righteous. Start denouncing the extremes in the party, and you will be back in play. Look to the members of your party that are more representative of the electorate to run for office, and your party will once again become strong. Keep pushing your religion on people and you will continue to see results like we saw on Tuesday.

Maintaining a civil society depends on limiting the number of things that are decided politically. To decide things politically is to guarantee conflict, because with free people making their own choices, they can all have what they want. If we vote - 51% to 49% - 49% are unhappy.

The left in this issue insists that a wide range of things should be dictated by government. They call them "anti-discrimination", so it is "good" and "righteous", and those who favor this path are comfortable using the power of the state to force those who disagree to follow THEIR standards.

They fail to see that this is the same as what they accuse the "white christian males" of doing, just with a different set of standards - a different agenda.

"Congress shall make no law...." means not establishing religion, but also not excluding religion from the public square. Free debate, and advocacy of policy must not be suppressed. No one has a monopoly on the truth, or on the One True Policy.

Rob, one thing that may lead to a resurgence of Conservatism is the growing Hispanic population. They are overwhelmingly Catholic. Right now, they tend to vote Democrat, but I live in a almost exclusively Hispanic neighborhood, and I can tell you that the Hispanics who are second and third generation Americans are conservative. As the Hispanic immigrant population ages, reproduces, and assimilates, I strongly believe they will be the new majority in a new Republican Party. The GOP needs to welcome these people with open arms and a path to citizenship for illegals and their innocent children. We have millions of them here. It is not realistic to believe that they will just go away, and we cannot start rounding up millions of people.

Donald, I tried to make the argument, before the vote, that the majority should not be voting on the minority, yet the Republicans put it to the people, thinking that it was a lock because homosexuals were in the minority. My comments on this particular subject were mostly ignored.

Republicans often propose legislation that forces things on people that should not be...Lohmer's two year wait for a divorce, comes to mind. Although I understand her ideas behind this, it is completely unreasonable to force this on couples and families. The left has absolutely no monopoly on trying to change societal norms through legislation, and implying this is disingenuous.

BTW, OUR standard is tolerance, equality and inclusion. I will let you define those standards that you want to force on others.

I could accuse those on the left of much darker motives on numerous issues, but I don't. Civil discussion requires respect. Attributing the most base motives to your opponents is not helpful.

The marriage amendment did not "force changes" on anyone. The law in Minnesota is the same today as it was on Nov 5th.

"Tolerance, equality and inclusion" mean different things to different people. The definition to some people is very aggressive in forcing "changes" on the unwilling. Presuming that your definition is the "best" one smacks of moral bigotry.

There is a blindness in those on the left to their own unwarranted assertion of moral superiority, even as they reject "external standards". It often boils down to "if you disagree with me, you're (obviously) wrong". Again, this is not helpful.

I will continue to write on these subjects in search of illumination. Thank you for posting.

Donald, what do you mean by "darker motives"? Not to argue, it just doesn't seem fair to throw that one out there without further explanation.

Of-course the marriage amendment did not force anything on anyone but it was an attempt to stop gay marriage from becoming legal in this state - forcing what you feel is the morally superior idea on all of the people of this state. That is a fact, and only stating half the argument is not even close to being truthful.

If I am acting morally superior by saying that all consenting, law abiding adults should be treated equally in this country, then so be it. I do find this to be better than saying that homosexuals have immoral sexual thoughts that should not be acted on. You have your position, I have mine. The people voted, and guess what? The majority agrees with me. They saw this amendment for what it was, and rejected it.

Donald wrote: "There is a blindness in those on the left to their own unwarranted assertion of moral superiority, even as they reject "external standards". It often boils down to "if you disagree with me, you're (obviously) wrong". Again, this is not helpful."

I could write the exact same statement, replacing your "left", with the word "right". But here's the difference, we, as a country are embracing diversity, while wanting to keep equal rights for all. The right wants to keep things status quo or revert back to the past, which does include bigotry.

Those who oppose Marriage Equality had a chance to blunt it when Gays asked for Civil Unions and the same rights for CU's as married people get but Conservatives said "No, absolutely not!" - and fought them every step of the way - so what choice did Gay people have?

None, there was no reason to not then fight for Marriage Equality.

Over the last few decades Conservatives rushed amendments to voters to drive the base in general elections and further say "No" to gay people

It is too bad that Conservatives didn't say yes to Civil Unions decades ago - but they didn't - they fought to deny equal rights under the law and now they are watching with horror as the issue slips through their fingers.

Even if CU's had been allowed with equal rights - gays *may* have pushed for marriage - but we'll never really know for sure...

The irony now is that some of those same Conservatives are now saying "But, what about Civil Unions and we'll give you equal treatment under the law".

But of course, the problem for Conservatives is that the demographics are changing and it's just too late for gays to compromise, now they don't have to because they are winning and they have both time and demographic changes on their side.

Nick, regarding Hispanics, while I live now in pretty much a fully Caucasian area - for most of my life I lived in a city that had \ has a large Hispanic population and always had plenty of Hispanic neighbors.

As a side note (and perhaps you may have the same experience) I found my Hispanic neighbors to be some of the most fun and ready to "invite you over" neighbors that I have seen.

I will agree with you that a lot of them are Catholic, no denying that when you walk into their house (anyone who has ever been in a Catholic Hispanic home will know what I am referring to).

However, without change the Republican Party (as you noted it will take a New Republican Party) because while they are "Conservative" they are also typically not opposed to the Government doing "stuff" and being there as a safety net, even while Catholic they poll pretty high (particularly Latina's) on women having the right to an abortion if they personally choose that, and of course even when they want to reduce illegal immigration they sure don't like the demonization of Hispanics that they too often see from high profile Conservatives who want to score "points" by bashing them publicly.

I firmly believe that if the GOP embraces Hispanics rather than demonizing them, we will see a resurgence of Conservatism. It is in Hispanic immigrants and their ancestors that the future of this country resides, in large part. The fact is, we need them. In 20 years, this country will be in dire straits once again, but this time the problem will not be unemployment. Anyone who wants a job will have one. The problem will be a shortage of working-age people trying to support an ever-growing elderly population. We will desperately need immigrants, and they will be mostly Hispanic. The GOP better get used to them now, and start working to Americanize them, rather than keeping them at arm's length. They share our values, for the most part. We need to accept them.

This is exactly what is wrong with communication in this country, and probably elsewhere.....please read my post and the reply from Kingskid....does anyone see where I said what he is claiming? I think that what I said was that, the "reign" is over...that they no longer will control this country....women and other and colors of people are now involved....that is what I was saying. I did not say that Christians were over, or Christian white men were over, and were to be disregarded...I said that their reign was over....after explaining on other posts my personal experience with this, being Native. I have been falsely accused by the Kingskid....isn't that in violation of some Christian commandment? ;)

Sharon

10:44 am on Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Please keep your book out of my government....we the people have won a very important vote. No Shireah law, no Jewish law, no Christian law, no Buddhist law, no Hindu law, no Sik law, no nadda religion mixed with our government laws!!!!!!!. So happy....get over it, the end of the reign of the Christian white "man" is over.

Kingskid

12:56 pm on Friday, November 9, 2012

Sharon you said that the end of the white christian man is over. It sounds to me like you are prejudce that is sad because there is no room for that nowadays. And furthermore no matter what man has decided God is the one that has the final say not man. You will never been able to get rid of Christians.

VERY nicely put, Nick.

Don't forget to use Pitirim Sorokin in your non-religious arguments, Nick. After all, his vast knowledge of modern society and the impact of the gays on our society should speak for itself, no?

Abortion is an issue where the key is what you consider human life, and whether it is "wrong" to take that life. These are moral questions, and there is no "logic" or "fact" about them. Either they are given to us through some explicit faith, or we choose our own standards.

Rejecting external standards in our deliberations leaves us choosing our own.

Choosing our own standards - our morality - is a very dangerous road.

"Choosing our own standards - our morality - is a very dangerous road."

An even more dangerous road, is to confuse your standards/your morality as the only standard.

Ray, a stable society generally must live under one moral standard. Other societies can have their own moral standards, but it generally does not work to have people in the same society living under many different moral standards.

I just now saw the latest news about General Petraeus. Tragic for his family and a certain blow to his moral character, but I still believe the above rules apply.

David F, you've hit on it exactly. I agree with Susan, that it is tragic for his family, but he endangered his clearance and btw, it's against military code to commit adultery, for the same reasons that you said above. I'm very proud of the people here for not using this man's mistake in a political debate. The man is a hero, but in the end, he is only human. He did the right thing, in the end, by resigning and not dragging this out.

David F
That logic suggests that the Archdiocese approves of what this priest did. In fact, they did not and do not. The Archdiocese turned him in to the civil authorities and he will no longer be a priest.
The Archdiocese, and that includes her members, not just her religious leaders, proposed to Minnesota that the definition of marriage remain between one man and one woman because she believes it is best for the common good of the whole state. Just over half of the state (52%) rejected that proposal for now.

I invite you to view Episode 34 of the Marriage Minutes archive found on the www.minnesotaformarriage.org website. It states the children do best when raised by their married mother and father. That is backed up by the first large scale, random sampled, peer reviewed, and published study at The New Family Structures Study from the University of Texas, Austin. Mark Regnerus is the principal investigator. The Research was done by 8 highly qualified college professors and reviewed by several critics, including those who support gay marriage, but who support the quality of the research. The study looks at 40 social, emotional, and relational outcomes. You might be very surprised.
The state government has a vested interest in supporting marriage between a man and a woman vs. the competing definition, which is heading towards a genderless one. Children are the future of our society. Let’s not neglect what is best for them.

Couple things, Peter. Perhaps the archdiocese did disapprove but I hardly think it makes up for the hundreds (thousands?) of priests who molested and abused kids but were simply shipped off to another meat market where they were allowed to continue their abusive behavior towards children under the protection of the church. Also, not every family includes a mother, father, 2.3 children, dog and white picket fence. What did the study have to say about single parent families, those on welfare, growing up in neglected neighborhoods, etc.? Even if a study did show some differences between traditional couple and gay couple (not saying it did), it would seem the gay parents scenario is still far better than the vast majority of the other possible combinations or non-traditional scenarios. I'll take that batting average. Of course those children would be even more well adjusted if not for the self-righteous bigots who abhor the very existence of those non-traditional families.

Those who post on this site are a small minority of the readers. The vast majority read, but do not post. Don't confuse whatever reaction you get from this comment stream with a general sense of the sentiment with readers. As with politics, often the most strident have the least support.

Thank you for posting.

A link to the study here: http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/people.html

I am skeptical of studies that measure highly subjective things like "well-being of children", especially where causation is almost impossible to establish. Correlation is open to interpretation. That said, this study looks like it is worth reading.

Randy
Whoa! I didn't write anything about "making up" for anything (regarding your comment about some bishops reassigning sexually abusive priests).
It doesn't appear that you actually took 4 minutes to listen to the website message. It appears that you have prejudice against the New Family STructures study group. I don't know who you are accusing of "abhoring the existence of non-traditional families", but it sounds like you are a little insecure about what people think of you.
There seems to be little conversation on this website and a lot of name-calling and dismissive arguments. I'll sign off, thank you very much.

If the study found that traditional marriage, with both parents raising the child/ren in the same home, is better for the children, then why isn't your party working to force marriage on couples who produce a child out of wedlock? Why isn't it working to outlaw divorce? Instead, you choose to fight against gay marriage using the argument that it is in the best interest of the children. Do you really care about what is best for the children? Are you doing all you can do, or are you just against gay marriage, when using this argument?

I did not watch the link, Peter, and perhaps read far too much into your statements, but I maintain the actions of the catholic church the past several decades with regard to the cover up of its priests to be indefensible. Also, the primary battle cry of those supporting the marriage amendment was, gasp, how horrific it would be for children forced to grow up with gay parents. It was pretty hard to miss.

Well said, Susan. It's another example of many conservatives not being honest about their true motives.

Susan, are you denying that it is best for children to be raised by married parents in the same home? I don't think you need a study to prove that.

For children to be raised by married parents is the ideal, obviously. But the ideal is not always achievable in the real world, and cannot be enforced through law. That is why conservatives hold the married mother/father household in the ideal, but do not try to outlaw divorce or force unmarried parents to get married. To make what is ideal the exclusive legal situation is wholly unrealistic.

Nick wrote: "To make what is ideal the exclusive legal situation is wholly unrealistic."

That's right, but to say that children do best in a family structure, and then use this exact argument against gay marriage, is ludicrous. Giving gay couples the legal and tax benefits to benefit and protect themselves and their children, should be the FIRST step in giving these children great odds at success. Fighting against gay marriage based on the idea that a family structure is best for the children is not even logical.

Nick, haven't you (and certainly others) used the crumbling fabric of society excuse to justify your support for the marriage amendment? So how is not allowing homosexuals to raise children, or certainly discouraging it from occurring, make it better for children? Let's not forget all those children you don't want aborted when they could be adopted. Even if you happen to believe the best situation for kids is a mother and father in a healthy loving relationship is the ideal, where exactly would you place two loving gay parents on the parenting hierarchy for raising upstanding children. Do they rank above or below a single parent of either sex, how about a hetero couple in a loveless relationship who fight frequently? How about a married couple who both work too much and are unable to provide the attention their kids deserve or maybe a mother likes her wine a bit too much? I realize these situations can also occur with gay couples, but then why was one of the primary arguments, one that you continue to use, that a no vote on this amendment is bad for kids and families. From my vantage point, it seems to create a very good situation for those children when their parents are not treated like second-class citizens.

Why does Susan believe that those who disagree with her on this very subjective area are "not even logical" and "ludicrous". She suggests the the FIRST step ... should be changing legal and tax laws. So the most important factor in raising children are the tax laws and legal structures? Love and sociology are secondary?

Please explain.

Donald, I said that using the argument that a family structure, with two parents is better for the children, yet arguing against the family structure in a home with two homosexual parents is not logical and is therefore ludicrous.

Donald wrote: "So the most important factor in raising children are the tax laws and legal structures?" Is that what I said? Please stop re-writing what I am saying.

What I said was: "Giving gay couples the legal and tax benefits to benefit and protect themselves and their children, should be the FIRST step in giving these children great odds at success"....yes, of-course a loving home is paramount, and should go without saying, but since you choose to nitpick my words, I will re-phrase.

Giving gay couples, in a loving home, the same legal and tax benefits to benefit and protect themselves and their children, should be the FIRST step by the people, to give these children the same starting point for success as those children who are currently afforded those benefits under the law, through marriage of their parents.

And Donald, I will ask you AGAIN...why is it okay for you to say that I (and the majority of voters) are wrong, but I cannot say you are wrong?

I marvel at the ease with which those who want revolution in law, family structure, and morality sling words like "ludicrous", "hate", "bigot", and "illogical" at those who suggest they may be wrong. There appears to be a strong sense of moral superiority that drives these comments. I believe it to be unwarranted.

I presume that those on this earth today need to give some deference to some 6000 years of culture, and at least understand why things are the way they are before they not only demand revolution, but demand that those who resist revolution be steamrolled. Yes, the "anti-discrimination" agenda that is clearly part of this debate intends to steamroll those who oppose the "equality" agenda.

The law is supposed to be made based on the welfare of ALL the citizens. The welfare of children should be a consideration when changing law. With family law, I would expect it to be a significant consideration.

There is a link posted (above) that looks to me like it is worth reading. I encourage the readers to look it over.

In principle, law should not be changed based on narrow majorities, but only with broad consensus. Steamrolling a minority, any minority, with a change in law that takes their freedom should not be done lightly.

Donald Lee, while I agree that we all need to start being kinder to each other - I, for one, am tired of all this anger - I would argue with your stand that one man-one woman is the way it's always been. Many cultures, including some of indigenous Americans, have recognized same sex marriage through history. I've read books that argue same sex unions occurred in Europe and were approved the the Roman Catholic Church. The state of marriage has always been in flux, and it has not always been about children, but often more about property. (Let's not even visit the Egyptian marriages between brothers and sisters. Yeesh.) Heck, I've been married some thirty-odd years , and the marriage is a changing thing, which is good, I think, or it would never survive what's thrown at it. Anyway, maybe we could stop labeling people here? I'm firmly pro-fame sex marriage, but I don't believe that everybody who stands against it is filled with hate.

LOL! "Same-SEX marriage", not "pro-fame" marriage Although I really believe that celebrity marriages ought to be outlawed. : )

Donald wrote: "In principle, law should not be changed based on narrow majorities, but only with broad consensus. Steamrolling a minority, any minority, with a change in law that takes their freedom should not be done lightly."

This is truly hilarious....if the vote had gone the other way, I could say the exact same thing to you! I even TRIED to say the exact thing to you....the majority should not be able to decide for the minority. Too bad Republicans decided that this is how it should be. It was put on the ballot (which you defended, Donald), and the people decided.

The only "strong sense of moral superiority" are those claiming that the ONLY way to define family is when it starts with one man and one woman. Whether it comes from the bible or the sense of superior knowledge in the matter, those claiming to know the ultimate "truth" are fooling themselves. Those who embrace the diversity of this great country are not claiming moral superiority, we are claiming that acceptance and equality should win, over judgment and condemnation.

The marriage amendment failed. If it had passed, it would have changed almost nothing, as it simply re-affirmed existing law. In particular, it re-affirmed the definition of a word that has obvious biological significance when dealing with reproduction. It was about stability of the law, not steamrolling anyone. The agenda of its opponents is the one of revolution and legal change.

The smugness of those who oppose this amendment and believe that their opponents are some sort of joke is unhelpful.

Donald, so what you claim is that the Church spent millions on an amendment that would have "changed almost nothing" ? Can we be sure that it was not about making sure that SSM never became legal thru the legislature or the judicial branch.

Assume what you may about the opponents, the people who started this whole charade were its proponents and not its opponents.

Sure some of us have a right to be happy. Just as Frank Schubert and his crowd , each time they had succeeded in the past.

Donald, implying that this amendment was NOT put forward in an attempt to stop gay marriage in this state is not helpful....everyone here knows it's true intentions.

There is no way that I can be smug, as I only had one vote. Responding to each of your allegations is the only thing I find funny....the Republicans put it to the people, and we answered. Now Republicans must accept this outcome, and whining about the majority not being large enough, is only showing your true colors, not mine.

Donald, since this outcome changes absolutely NOTHING, why are you not rejoicing? Please explain how this was a revolution.

At least I see that you are now writing that the amendment would have changed "almost nothing", so I guess you do acknowledge that there was an agenda.

It is an odd happiness that requires legal sanction. The free people who founded this nation were not obsessed with the approval of the King, but wanted to be left alone. They spoke of being "endowed by our creator with ... inalienable rights ... ", not rights bestowed by government. They also did not demand approval from their neighbors, nor harness the power of the state to require it.

The blindness of some here to simple logic when it conflicts with their agenda is distressing. The law, and the march of history will follow that logic. We should understand it, not ignore it in pursuit of agenda.

To be very clear: The amendment would have re-affirmed existing law. It would not have been a barrier to "equal rights", as long as it was not called "marriage". Legally, very little would have changed. The amendment failed. Nothing changed. The amendment was to defend a foundational institution from revolutionaries who want to transform it.

Those revolutionaries now have a political opening from the failure of the amendment, and a sympathetic state government in St. Paul. In my opinion, those revolutionaries are heedless of any harm they may cause, and do not respect opponents. Harm caused by revolution may not be evident for years - or generations. Smug self-righteousness permits no humility, deference or caution.

In 2009, Barack Obama summed the attitude up well: "I won."

Donald, if gay marriage does become legal, you will still have equal rights under the law. If you choose to do business in this state, you have to follow the laws for businesses, just like everyone else, that is equal.

You can choose to take advantage of our public school system, pay for private school, or home school. These choices are for everyone....equal.

Your marriage will still be defined the same way. If you feel it would be diminished, that is on you, not the law.

Allowing a couple to marry only promotes the idea of a family unit, which is good for the country, right?

Donald wrote: "Smug self-righteousness permits no humility, deference or caution.

In 2009, Barack Obama summed the attitude up well: "I won."

HE DID WIN! There is a winner and a loser in every election. Your thought process in making this statement is, in part, why there was so much opposition to the Republican Party this year. I cannot believe you actually made this statement, but please continue as this is this mentality that helped him to win again.

I have read some of this New Family Structures Study from the University of Texas, Austin. Mark Regnerus is hardly an unbiased investigator since his results are "led by his faith." As a person trained in scientific investigation, I can tell you that results of a scientific investigation are based on evidence and tested rigorously to determine the reliability of the outcome. I can also tell you that a gay couple I know well will be the most devoted parents to the developmentally and physically disable children they intend to adopt. (They have several years of experience providing care to individuals with severe disabilities) Can you live up to that challenge?

OK. No one is unbiased. You are biased to favor your friends, of course.

What are you trying to say?

You are getting mixed messages because you haven't thought the issue through. With respect to the death penalty, if we believe that human life is precious, then if you take a life, the only payment that will be acceptable is your own life. If the penalty for murder was 10 years in prison, then does that mean that we place a priceless value on human life? No. Human life is cheapened when the price for taking one is small. Human life is precious when the price for taking one is the ultimate price one can pay; his own life.

With respect to war, wars are often fought to ultimately preserve what is good and just; to stop evil people from killing innocents. When Hitler was massacring his way across Europe, who placed the value of human life higher? The countries that maintained their pacifism and let it happen, or the countries who fought to stop the slaughter? When the goal of war is to save lives and stop evil, those who engage in that war are placing the value of human life the highest. Not those who allow the slaughter of innocents to continue unhindered.

Nick - some in the Pro-Life Community view the abortion battle as a war and that they are charged with protecting innocent life from being murdered.

One of the aspects of war is the pro-active killing of others in order to achieve a greater good and to, among other things, protect from further innocent casualties.

If someone believes that abortion is murder (and in essence that the battle is a war) - would any Pro-Life person be within their moral rights to kill a doctor who was in the act of performing an abortion?

How about killing a doctor who was getting into his car to drive to a clinic where he would be performing an abortion within a few hours/

Or how about killing that doctor at any time if that doctor had previously performed and will continue to perform abortions?

Rob, first, wars must be sanctioned by a government. Law and order must be maintained. The killing people by vigilantes cannot be allowed in a civil society, especially when the people deemed guilty by the vigilantes are acting within the law. The idea is to change the law, not start murdering abortion doctors in the streets.

Nick - do you believe that abortion will be banned in the United States completely, or should it be turned over the states?

Also, if the government forces a poor woman to have a child should the government bear any additional responsibility for assisting that woman financially to raise the child or does the government and the people just get to wipe their hands of the the childa and any additional responsibility once it is born?

What if the child has a known severe birth defect that will result in very expensive medical care and if charities are not available to assist through the persons life - should the government be required to pay for the lifetime medical care if the parents and latter the individual cannot - or again does society get to force the woman to give birth and then walk away?

Rob, I do not want to make predictions on future laws regarding abortion, but it would be my hope that one day the unborn would be given equal protection under the law. I find it interesting that the Left uses the 14th Amendment in its justification for same-sex marriage on a regular basis, but when it comes to protecting human life, the 14th Amendment is suddenly forgotten.

To your other points; how, exactly does the government force a woman to have a child? The government is not dragging women off the streets and impregnating them with test tube babies. Except in cases of rape, women get pregnant through voluntary behavior. The resulting child is not the government's problem, though there are over 70 federal means-tested welfare programs across 13 federal agencies, most of which focus on children and their low income parents. Women who need help can find it in this country.

If a low income mother gives birth to a child that needs lifetime medical care, that child should get all the help he or she needs. Those cases are not common, thankfully, and a wealthy country such as ours can afford such things.

You seem to be suggesting that children born to low income mothers are somehow worth less as human beings and should be killed in the womb, so as not to put a burden on the mother and society. The lives of children born to wealthy parents are not worth more.

I'm with you, Frederick. I'm not arguing with you, Nick, about having to fight WWII, but I'm suggesting that if we HADN'T fought WWI, none of the horror that came later would have happened. I recognize that I'm operating on hindsight. Also, you're being condescending about Frederick not having thought the message through. We only know about a war being "just", by what our leaders tell us.

Which is why we need to question and to READ.

Nick - I believe that you understand that by "have" I clearly meant carry the child to term and deliver the child which is what the government would do if abortion was made illegal.

As for the 14th Amendment and prenancy I assume you are at some point looking at the various "Personhood Amendments" that have come up on some states?

I am not a Constituational Scholar but Section 1 states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Clearly a fetus has not yet "born" so do they fit into the 14th Amendment?

I have read some of the arguments for the rights of a fetus under the 14th but am not yet convinced or sold on their arguments.

I really do not see how you possibly read into my comment that "children born to low income mothers are somehow worth less as human beings and should be killed in the womb".

When in fact I believe that with abortion legal poor women should have a strong support system in place paid for by society such that abortions due to finances is not a reason that any woman should have to take into consideration when determining if she will carry the baby to term and deliver the baby (or "have" the baby).

And there should be a much more comprehensive safety net such that no family should be forced into financial destruction because of medical bills.

I believe that a country that can spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bomb a country like Iraq and then hundreds of billions to rebuild the same country can certainly afford a much better system of assisting with the costs of medical care inside the United States for our own people.

Regarding making predictions - why not make some predictions about the law?

Here is my prediction, abortion will not be outlawed nationally, however certain states will continue their drive to make abortion centers so difficult to operate that they will enact essentially a ban on abortions within certain states (for now).

But, if abortion is outlawed on a national level, I believe that Republicans would be left in a world of hurt at the national level and senate elections for decades as young women (in particular) and everyone else who is Pro-Choice would turn out in much larger numbers to vote to get the right to Choose back no matter how Conservatives try to explain that they shouldn't have the decision to end a pregnancy.

Most women today don't remember a time when they did not have the right to have an abortion - whether or not they personally would ever have one but they really don't like the idea of the government telling them that they can't.

And it is always easier to rally people to change something than it is to maintain the status quo.

Good catch, Rob, on the "born" in the 14th Amendment. I didn't catch that. However, I do wonder what it would have read had the unborn been considered. In the 19th century, when the Amendment was written, I do not believe they thought to consider the future implications of the word "born". If they knew that 150 years later, being in the womb didn't necessarily mean that you would be born, short of illness or injury, would it have been worded differently? Just something to consider.

Nick - it is a good question regarding what "born" would mean in the future - or even with modern medical technology.

Not to get everyone spun up on the 2nd Amendment... but...I also think of that same general concept with regards to the 2nd Amendment, just think of what a firearm was when they wrote the 2nd Amendment - did they even imagine an AK-47 with a 100 round magazine? Or a .45 with an extended clip? etc....

(Don't get me wrong, I am fine with guns, have owned guns and enjoy shooting but not sure if they were writing the same 2nd Amendment today if it might not have limitations of some type even if people could still own their own firearms).

However, Conservative are usually the Strict Constructionists and they often apply that to the 2nd Amendment so I suppose from a Conservative point of view Strict Constructionism would also apply to the 14th Amendment ?

Rob, maybe the solution to the 2nd Amendment debate is that everyone gets to carry a musket around, no questions asked. Kind of an amusing thought...

Wow, Sharon, you just opened a whole new can of worms, because people seem to resist the idea that gays are "born that way." Myself, I treasure each of my kids and I would not want them to be any different ... but I KNOW them. I probably would have had to think carefully, to expose a child to the hate spewing out of some people. How about being able to determine if an unborn were inclined to become a hater or a bully excluding the vulnerable from the group? That would be a far better improvement in the world, IMO.

Are you suggesting that conservatives would place a lesser value on the life of someone who is gay? Well, I guess that's no less despicable than your suggestion that the lives of babies born out of wedlock and who live in poverty are worth less, or your statement above that unborn babies are parasites, "no matter how far along the pregnancy".

So, according to your statement, a baby one minute from birth is just a worthless parasite that should be killed? After all, that is still "pregnancy". If that is too extreme, how about one hour, one day, one week? Do you honestly believe that a baby goes from being a worthless parasite one minute to a precious baby the next?

Something tells me you really haven't thought this whole thing through very well.

My niece was born out of wedlock, and lived in poverty for a few years until her mother would let my brother take care of them. Was her life worth less? Should she have been aborted? If her mother thought like you, she would have been. Now, she's a precious little girl who just started first grade, she has her own baby brother now, and my brother works very hard to take care of his family.

You can't assume that all babies who get aborted would have turned out to be murdering gangsters who end up in prison or on death row. That is horribly prejudicial.

Nick, how do you reconcile the idea that your party wants to end abortions while simultaneously taking away the safety nets in place for the mothers of those children born into unfortunate situations? That is perhaps one of the biggest GOP hypocrisies that exists is how they don't want sex ed or birth control taught in schools (much less available for adults) and they don't want abortions for girls/women who can't possible care for those children and yet want to do everything to ensure that the mother can't get health insurance or enough assistance to provide an environment for that child that won't result in this vicious cycle being repeated over and over again? Maybe that's an over generalization, but I think it is pretty accurate.

Randy, before you call conservatives hypocrites, you should look up statistics on charitable giving and volunteering. You will find that conservatives, though they make less money than liberals do, donate much more time and money to help people born into unfortunate circumstances. I think that is liberals who are the hypocrites, always talking about how much they care about helping the poor, but then doing nothing personally to help them. Voting Democrat is not an act of charity, but volunteering at a battered women's shelter is.

And your solution to mothers who cannot take care of their children is to kill the children? What kind of a psychotic solution is that? How about adoption? Or how about getting the mother some job training? It is the assistance that you mention that results in the never-ending cycle of dependence. It has been proven that limiting or putting work requirements on public assistance helps to reduce the poverty rate. The Clinton-era welfare reforms did just that. If someone needs to work to survive, they will work and eventually work their own way out of poverty. The safety net needs to be a trampoline, not a trap.

One of the big misconceptions about conservatives is this; people think that if we don't want the government to do something, we don't want it done at all. Liberals often ask, "If the government won't help the poor, who will?". The conservative answer: "Me."

(I originally posted this yesterday evening, but it still says it's pending for some reason, so I am reposting it now)

Please share any documentation of the argument you have cited ad nauseam about how giving conservatives are because I would like to make sure it's a more accurate source than when you cited the work of Pitirim Sorokin. No offense, but simply because you say it is not enough for me. We agree completely on welfare reform. And no, my solution for "mothers who cannot take care of their children is to kill the children," it is to provide sex education, make birth control readily available and, failing that, aborting the fetuses before they become children and turn into an anchor on society that most conservatives hypocritically don't want to subsidize in the first place.

Regarding poor mothers - sure you give them all the training you want (and who exactly is going to give or pay for that training?) - but anyway if the have children - unless they have family available to leave the children with where do the kids go?

Day Care if very expensive - should we have government subsidized day care for poor mothers who are trying to work but don't have the support system to leave the young children with?

Nick, I wanted to save you the trouble of continuing to propagate the idea that republicans and conservatives are more generous with charitable giving than their DFL or liberal counterparts. You've mentioned this several times and I previously asked you to show where you found this information because I think it's been shown that sometimes your statements could use some verification or fact checking. I did a quick search myself and you might want to check out the analysis of this study as it relates to your previous statements about charitable giving.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/

Thanks, Randy, I found this interesting. Here is the actual paper:

"Abstract:
Charitable contributions are the lifeblood of many nonprofit organizations; however, little attention has been paid to how political attitudes affect donations. In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation. Finally, we examine the dynamic relationship between political control and individual partisanship. We find that charitable contributions fluctuate based on the political landscape: Democrats (Republicans) donate less money when a Republican (Democrat) occupies the White House. Conversely, having a co-partisan in the White House increases the average and total donations to nonprofits at the state level. In addition to furthering our understanding of partisan bias, our findings demonstrate that the results of a presidential election could have significant consequences for nonprofit organizations and the populations they serve.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033

I could post myriad articles that contradict this. The bottom line is that articles from Left-leaning sources will show that Liberals and Conservatives donate equally, and Right-leaning sources will show that Conservatives donate more. No sources show that Liberals donate more.

It may be that the difference lies in what is counted as "charity". I personally would not count a donation to Green Peace as charity, because that donation ultimately doesn't help anyone in need, but only goes to forward a political agenda. Conservatives are much more likely to donate to charities that actually help people, such as Feed My Starving Children.

You make me laugh. Thanks Nick. So I suppose the fact that the majority of donations by conservatives go to churches is irrelevant? You might be aware that much of that money goes towards heating large churches, paying salaries of clergy and occasional child molesters/priests/lawsuits, etc. That should hardly even be considered charity and it's self serving on top of that. You also may have missed the part where donations rise and fall slightly based on who is in power. Does any of your alleged evidence (none of which you have ever documented, by the way) come from outside the period when Bush was in power?

One election never ends the conversation, nor should it.

You can't honestly believe support on the issue will start trending the other direction, do you Donald?

Hispanic immigrants are overwhelmingly Catholic, Randy. As the Hispanic population ages, reproduces, and assimilates, they will have a growing impact on our society. I live in a highly Hispanic neighborhood, and I can tell you that Hispanics that are second and third generation Americans tend to be conservative. They do not want same-sex marriage, in large part.

Nick, I think we all have things to learn from this election. I actually thought the Hispanic community would vote for the amendment. I have now learned not to make sweeping judgements about anybody.

I think I would stop putting stock in catholics at this point, Nick. Even the few hispanics I know can sniff out an organized crime outfit like the catholic church.

Nice comment about the church I grew up in being an organized crime outfit. Why do you say things like that except if it's an effort to lose credibility and sound foolish? That kind of thing is exactly the same thing as the people who go around saying Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim. It's just stupid.

I'm not making a prediction. I'm just saying that the impact of immigrants and their ancestors is something to consider. Like I've said before, I just think it's too early to call it a done deal on same-sex marriage. There are many factors at play.

I think we need to stop taking swipes at each other. Everybody take a deep breath and step back, and maybe catch Lincoln next week. What happened when he was assassinated - and left the "righteous" to strike back at the south - left echoes in our history for one hundred years. And then some.

Nick, perhaps I have been overly harsh. How should I describe an organization that has displayed corruption from the top down, brow beats its members into giving generously so the organization can turn around and give payouts to the hundreds of victims it abused and do virtually nothing to stop that abuse from continuing, but rather expose even more innocent children to these same criminals who were moved from church to church with little more than a slap on the wrist? Even though there are many fine, upstanding and honorable people involved with the church, the corruption is and has been institutional and the church has still gotten off easy if you ask me. The catholic church has been corrupt almost since Day 1, as Martin Luther successfully pointed out a few years back. No amount of good deeds is enough to outweigh the arrogance and disregard for common decency displayed by the church hierarchy. How would you describe a group from the middle east that conducted itself like the catholic church?

Michele, taking swipes at people is the only thing Randy ever does here.

Nick, if you think through Randy's point here, it does make sense. I fought him on it at first, believing the supporters should be able to support their church regardless of what the church leaders have done, but the more I read his comments on the subject, the more he is changing my opinion.

Imagine if this happened in either political party. If all these elected officials had young aids and we found out that many were being sexually abused. Instead of kicking them out of the party, publicly shaming, and having the perpetrators prosecuted, the aids were sent home, and another was brought in to be abused by the predators. The leaders of the party knew what was happening but chose to keep it quiet in order to protect the party. Now, to follow through with this analogy, when this abuse came to light, all those party leaders kept their positions. Would you be able to continue to support a political party that allowed all this to happen? And let’s not forget, we are not really talking about politicians who already can be questioned when it comes to integrity and honesty, we are talking about the largest conservative Christian organization in the world, which should be expected to live by the morals and values that they are preaching and teaching.

I am not condemning those who still hold the Catholic faith; I only question how they are able to rationalize this point, and continue to support the Catholic organization.

BTW, I also grew up Catholic.

"Hispanic immigrants are overwhelmingly Catholic, Randy. As the Hispanic population ages, reproduces, and assimilates, they will have a growing impact on our society. I live in a highly Hispanic neighborhood, and I can tell you that Hispanics that are second and third generation Americans tend to be conservative. They do not want same-sex marriage, in large part."

Nick, you make the mistake of assuming that the second and third generation hispanic population will hold to the same politics and religion as their parents/grandparents.

I was raised in a large catholic family, with devout parents (Republicans) and grandparents (Roosevelt Democrats). Only one of my siblings practices catholicism today (out of 7). We are once again in this generation, primarily Democrats. Divorce, intermarriage with others of various value systems, world events, economic and educational opportunities, etc. (i.e. "assimilation") are powerful change agents affecting the second to third generation in America. External factors (9/11, access (or limited access) to education and healthcare and living wage jobs) often become a bigger influence on a person's political leanings than Mom and Dad's politics. Each generation faces different challenges. Ask the younger generation about how the Great Recession has changed their views.

To Randy (and now Susan's changing opinion),
REgarding your comments on the Catholic Church. I am a Catholic priest. YOu wrote, "How should I describe an organization that has displayed corruption from the top down, brow beats its members into giving generously so the organization can turn around and give payouts to the hundreds of victims it abused and do virtually nothing to stop that abuse from continuing, but rather expose even more innocent children to these same criminals who were moved from church to church with little more than a slap on the wrist?" Why do you think this way? First of all, even one priest abusing a child is too much, but the statistic I know is that 1% of CAtholic priests nationwide and over the last 50 years (that includes bishops) have sexually abused a minor. Further, at least in this Archdiocese, no priest found guilty of sexual abuse of a minor (in fact of anyone in their pastoral care, let alone a minor), has been sent to another assignment where they had access to abuse again since 1985. Before that, no one knew that these priest's disorder could not be rehabilitated. They had been reassigned thinking that they were "rehabilitated". Besides, that was 1%. The John Jay study says that, of non-family members, children are five times more likely to be abused by a public school teacher than a priest. That leaves 99% of priests who do not abuse and whom their parishioners love. By the way, God loves them (and you), I love them, too.
All the best.

Thanks, Peter, when I am unsure of an issue, I appreciate all points of view. I will admit that I don't know the statistic on the percentage of the general population and pedophilia (which I will now look up), but I wonder if it is as high as 1% (keeping in mind that the 1% is only the cases that we know about). I also must wonder if the incidents in the church would be greatly reduced if priests were not required to be celibate.

My apologies, I should have addressed you as Father Richards.

Mr. Richards, the study you have cited was paid for and conducted by the catholics and based on voluntary responses, just how much stock should a reasonable person place on an alleged piece of research with those caveats? We are both reasonable people who have done our own reading, but unlike me your judgement is clouded by a religious organization that you have pledged your undying support (I would suggest naive allegiance) to. I know that catholics around the world do plenty of good, but there is no defense for the atrocities conducted by the church and many of its servants. Can you honestly say that the catholic church was more concerned with reforming and/or rehabilitating those priests it knew were abusing children before sending them out to continue that abuse than it was protecting its fraudulent reputation? Of course not. Merry Christmas.

Continued...

There are over 70 federal welfare programs across 13 federal agencies. There is enormous administrative waste here. Those federal programs would be consolidated into a few, under one agency. The federal welfare program would follow the reforms Susan and I worked out a while back. There would be requirements for work, community service, or job training to receive benefits, and part of the savings for the overhaul would go to subsidized child care.

The 15% self-employment tax would be reduced to 5% to encourage self-reliance. Medicare and Medicaid would be replaced by the Single Payer System. The cap on the Social Security Tax at $106,800 in income would be eliminated. There would now be no cap on income that Social Security Taxes are paid on.

Paying for the Single-Payer system would be similar to Medicare taxes now; paid by employers and employees, but with no cap on income. Employers would save money by not having to provide medical benefits, and employees would not have their health insurance tied to their workplace. Self-employment would be strongly encouraged by the 5% tax.

Politicians would serve one 6-year term, with federal elections held every 2 years; the Presidency in its own, two years later, half the Senate and half the House, then 2 years later the other half of Congress. They could serve a second 6 year term, but not congruently; at least 6 years must separate the terms. Third terms are not an option.

And the US Constitution, which says nothing about abortion ends up where? Is there any limit to the federal government's police power? Even with current precedent, this "compromise" would break new ground in trampling state sovereignty.

Tax rates on capital gains would remain at 15%. Corporate tax rates would be cut to 25%, but corporate loopholes would be cut out completely.

Income taxes would remain untouched for now. The Bush Tax Cuts would remain in force for everyone.

Now, I see this as a compromise, and I don't agree with everything here. I also do not know if this is a fiscally-balanced plan, but the economic growth it should generate would contribute to significant increases in tax revenue, I believe.

This is just a rough and dirty overview of what I might be willing to give in exchange for what I want to get.

Thoughts, anyone?

Nick, I would also like to read the replies from those you listed, but add Joyce, as well.

I would be willing to accept this except for two things. Adding to the abortion exception if they found that the baby would have a severe disability that would include great suffering. And the capital gains tax. Income is income, and should be taxed accordingly.

Actually, you did make a somewhat compelling argument about the risk and benefit involved with investing, so I would be willing to split the difference, and go to 25%.

An intriguing package and I think that it would have support from many (a majority?) of Americans perhaps (I would like to see this type of proposal have some polling).

My thoughts.

- Before a man can get a prescription for something like Viagra they need to be able to show that they can financially care for any child that may result from the usage.

- I would like to see an elimination of No Fault Divorce. While I do support Gay Marriage, I also do believe that marriage is serious business and that the No-Fault option has diminished how important people should take marriage.

I would also be fine with the government simply getting out of "Marriage" - if people want to be legally recognized and treated under the tax code as a couple then they should all have to get a Civil Union agreement (for these purposes it really is more of a Legal Agreement than anything else, while I know that doesn't sound romantic)

Then religious institutions would have the ability to "Marry" people (the government would not get involved in this) and each religious institution could determine who they "Marry" and under what conditions.

- Regarding Terms - while I don't like the concept of people having lift time elected jobs, I believe that simply pushing new people into office may make things worse.

We would have people with no experience getting hammered by lobbyists and they will have to rely even more on those people.

Also, knowing that they have only one or two terms then they are out - they (IMHO) will likely care even less about "The People" and will all be eyeing six figure jobs with the Lobbyists or other Organizations once they have to leave office and they will want to make sure those people are even happier than they may otherwise. I don't know of a good answer but while Term Limits sound great - I think that it may backfire.

- Wars. Wars can be massive hits to our economic pocketbook both for the current operations and for future medical costs for our returning wounded soldiers that must be taken care of with the best care possible.

I would like to see an automatic "War Tax" kick in whenever we deploy troops into a non-allied foreign country for more than a period of time (perhaps more than 2,000 troops for more than say 3 months).

No more "War on the Credit Card".

If a war is important enough to send men and women to die in - its important enough for people to pay for.

If politicians can't make the argument that we have to pay for a war while it's happening I have serious questions that the war must really have to be undertaken.

- Taxes - honestly I am not a guru on tax policy however, I have thought that a flat tax and perhaps a VAT or National Sales Tax also - with no deductions in general can make very good sense.

Also, a Negative Income Tax model that Milton Friedman proposed which I think is an intriguing idea to consider as it could still help poor people while (hopefully) eliminating a lot of the bureaucracy around helping them.

- Capital Gains Tax - I think that the preferential CG Tax rate should be effective should be kept for perhaps the first $100,000 of CG's however, after that (or some other upper limit, perhaps $250,000 (?)) it should then be taxed as a Personal Income Tax rate - this would allow for investments by most of the people who invest now to have the preferential tax treatment that helps to spur investment.

I love the war tax, Rob.

Good ideas, but why don't we go with capital gains for 20%.

What got me thinking was when Rob kept talking about "compromise" with respect to abortion, then presenting arguments in favor of abortion that other programs might solve. I started out willing to trade an abortion ban for single-payer health care, then it just grew from there.

Rob, I knew that my quick-and-dirty plan would need some refining. I kind of wanted others to do most of the refining, and you've come up with some great ideas. I agree with all of them, actually. What I originally said about term limits may have significant unintended consequences.

Susan, I prefer Rob's idea regarding capital gains. Also, I think that "severe disability that would include great suffering" would have to be more defined. I like it, but I wouldn't want it to be used to include anyone who has a disability. Children with Down's Syndrome are disabled, but are not suffering.

This (above) is the mentality that lost the election, IMO.
1. 47%
2. Extreme voices in the party, and those repeating their message.
3. Ignoring that the social issues ARE indeed important to the voters.
4. A book written thousands of years ago should not play a part in our politics - go ahead, Donald, repeat yourself again, and I will just do the same.
5. The flip flopping by your candidate.

So under your system old folks who get Social Security and Medicare won't be able to vote?

Don't forget those aren't Savings Accounts - particularly Medicare - are essentially systems where people now are paying for other people...

Are you forgetting who pushed through the massive government program - Medicare Part D? Ah yes, Republicans were in charge of the White House, Senate and House...

For getting a "Government Check" - will we be drug testing every politician that gets a government check - every member of the military - every old person who get a Social Security check?

For the life of me, I don't understand the mindset of Americans - they see that every time Republicans are in charge government is expanded, deficits are increased, economic prosperity declines and then once Republicans are out of power suddenly everything is blamed on the Democrats who have to turn things around.

When Bush left office we were LOSING 700,000+ jobs a month - under Obama we are Gaining 150,000 jobs a month and still Conservatives whine.

The US and Europe both went into the economic downfall and yet the US (which had a Stimulus is recovering) and Europe (who went into austerity) is continuing to decline.

Rob you missed it. I said no drug test. Also, my focus is on welfare, meant to put that in there. I will fix that for my Campaign Platform. Rob, how much did President Obama spend? What was the jobs rate at when President Bush left office? If President Obama is creating jobs, why are the jobless rates not changing at a fast rate. Where did you get the 700,000 lost jobs per month thing from? Also, when did it start declining? I am guessing 11/2008.
Susan, the mentality that lost the election was, Romney is not conservative enough so I will not vote at all. 3 million conservatives stayed home.
Social issues??? Too much attention is paid to the Social issues. What does the Government care about who sleeps with who. They have to work that out with God, not me. Abortion, is a matter of the heart not the mind. If you can't change their hearts, you are wasting your time.
People are to wrapped up in themselves too much. I know there are things more important then myself.

You all need to look at what really makes America work and stop the disgusting Class war that the Liberal/ Progressive/ Democrat party has successfully started. People need to be Honest with themselves. Without the wealthy, middle class would not have a Job. When the Government taxes the rich they will not confiscate enough from them, so they will come for the middle class. That is where most of the money is because the base is big. You confiscate more taxes when there are more middle class to take from, so let the private sector do what it was meant to do, create jobs. Finally, ask yourself this question, "Which do you value more... Security or Freedom".

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000. The link shows Jobless Rate History.
Let's compare President Bush's jobless rate to President Obama.

--- Without the wealthy, middle class would not have a Job.

<Rob> That isn't true at all - jobs are created in response to consumer demand for a product, good or service (not because some rich person wants to hire people just to be nice). Consumers drive job growth - the more consumers there are that can spend money the more jobs are needed. So if you want to drive jobs - ensure that the Middle Class has the best treatment as this is where most people are - and they have higher propensity to consume and spend on goods and services than anyone else.

Furthermore if you want wealthy people to get wealthier and have them create more jobs - give them MORE customers that all have MORE money to spend - that will drive job growth and allow the wealthy to get wealthier.

--- "Which do you value more... Security or Freedom".

<Rob> How do you define "Security" and how do you define "Freedom" - they are awesome buzz words and along with chanting "USA, USA, USA" are great for sound bytes - but other than that - how do you actually define those words?

What is "Security" to you?

What is "Freedom"?

The Security and Freedom question was post for the readers reply, not for me to lead or mislead.
I will agree that jobs are created by consumer demand. Where do people get the money to start a business? I know I can't just go out and start a business without money or investors. If you want business to grow and to get more people employeed, you have to cut taxes and grow the base, that way the Government will be able to confiscate from more people. The Government can not tax people into prosperity. Also the fastest way to get money into people pockets... cut taxes. Don't Demonize Business or the Rich, because their investment dollars are what we need... not Government.

A couple of issues with your statement.

1) Our country is not socialist, hasn't been socialist, nor will it ever be socialist.
2) Freedom and liberty are the building blocks of everything our country exists upon. If it weren't for those we would have never rebelled against England. So freedom of choice and freedom of sexual orientation should be given
3) Global warming is real and if you would pay attention to actual science and not local news you may learn a thing or two

Socialism isn't what caused the financial mess in Europe. And while I'm no economist, government intervention helped this country from sinking into the same hole.

>>> Where do people get the money to start a business?

Loans from financial institutions, investors, etc... however, again, the people who make investments will have more money when the middle class has more money to spend - not by cutting taxes to the wealthy.

If you believe that raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce investments - then that assumes that the wealthy are already putting all of their free capital into those investments.

>>> I know I can't just go out and start a business without money or investors. If you want business to grow and to get more people employed, you have to cut taxes and grow the base

If that was true then the economy should be going great after 8 years of Bush and 4 years of Obama where the tax rates have been kept at the rate after Bush cut them, however, it hasn't worked out the way the theory holds (as it hasn't most often in the past).

Regarding cutting taxes to spur spending - yes, I will agree to a point - and that is it will work IF you cut taxes to people who will go out and spend it on goods and services - but won't really do much if those people invest it or put it in some type of savings vehicle AND it matters who you cut those taxes.

1) Cut taxes to the people who will go out and spend the money - the middle class - if you cut taxes (to spur spending) to people who already have enough money to purchase what they want and they aren't living essentially "paycheck to paycheck" then they aren't going to go out and just buy stuff (because they already have the money to but it if they wanted it).

2) How to cut taxes. If you do a tax cut where people get a check in the mail (similar to what Bush did) that looks great politically, however, research as shown that a lot of the money is put in a bank account and not spent (which isn't what you want if you want to spur spending) - what you want to do is what Obama did and that is cut taxes so that it is shows up spread out over the year in people's paychecks - that way they are more likely to actually spend it on goods and services. However, politically it isn't as good since people don't see a nice check in the mail that they can link to a President...

"1) Our country is not socialist, hasn't been socialist, nor will it ever be socialist. "

Can you explain this? Many european countries have nominally "socialist" governments. Why would that be impossible here? Can you be specific enough to define what you are saying?

Well - to be honest we do have a substantial portion of taxpayer spending that is used to support a very large Socialist Institution - its call the United States Military.

And we also have Medicare, another very large Socialized institution...

All countries are a combination of Socialism and Free Market the difference is simply in how much of each goes into the mix.

We just went through at massive bailout of the Financial Sector - and we will do so again when they again blow themselves up - simply because they donate too much money to both Republicans and Democrats not be be bailed out when they need it.

But then when someone says - we need to raise revenue and reduce spending to deal with the debt we hear that that is horrible and how dare we ask them for more...

What we have too much of in this country is the following:

- Privatized profits and socialized losses...

.......... What?

Can you be specific? Which statements were "bellicose"?

Oh, now, Joey, people here were conducting a civilized conversation and now you're bringing religion and mixed capitalization and really strange history lessons into it. Who said anything about getting rid of God? And if God is in control (which is against the concept of free will), then things are going according to His plan. To misquote the Rev. Billy Graham, I read the end of the Book, and don't worry: it all turns out okay.

Your religious beliefs are perfect for you. Don't impose them on mine!

Joey - can you please direct us to what Jesus said about homosexuals and gay marriage?

Or which Commandment God noted homosexuality or gay marriage in?

Certainly if this was such an important issue - God would have put it in the Commandments (he could have made an 11th).

And Jesus would have preached extensively on it.

Otherwise, how about if we focus on what Jesus taught regarding the poor, sick, adultery, etc... and we'll keep an eye out for any updates on those Commandments or Jesus can come back and Preach on homosexuality.

So the big money won. Big surprise.

My point is that is was a colossal waste of money. Imagine how many people this could have fed...

Of-course every person has a right to spend (give) their money to whatever cause they support, but it would be nice if the tax exempt groups would stick to charity instead of trying to "change nothing".

Please point to a religion that regularly performs same-sex marriages. It is not DONALD's religious belief, or MY religious belief. It is generally ALL religious beliefs, and also the belief of many non-religious people as well.

It is actually just as much, if not more, cultural than religious anyhow. The culture of our nation is rooted in man-woman marriage. And we do have the right to codify our culture into civil law. If we didn't, what would be the basis of the civil laws?

What is happening is that a small minority of people are name-calling and bullying the rest of the nation into changing the root of the culture. Unfortunately, bullying and name-calling works, so that small minority is rapidly beating everyone else into submission. After all, who wants to be called a "hater" or a "bigot"? Never mind that it has nothing to do with hate or bigotry, as long as that's what people believe. It's all just tactics to achieve a noble end, right?

The reason that the religious are the ones standing up to the bullying (and making it look like a religious issue rather than a cultural one) is that we answer to something greater than ourselves. We're not guided by our own flawed human heart, so we don't submit so easily to the emotional manipulation of those who wish to drastically and radically change the root of the culture.

Nick wrote: "It is actually just as much, if not more, cultural than religious anyhow. The culture of our nation is rooted in man-woman marriage. And we do have the right to codify our culture into civil law. If we didn't, what would be the basis of the civil laws?"

This is why the state should have never gotten into the "marriage" business. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Persuading and even promoting social behavior through tax and legal benefits should not be the state's job. The state should only be there to deter bad behavior that can result in harm to a person and/or their property, and to enforce contracts. The state should not be able to determine who can enter into said contracts based on gender, unless a specific gender is deemed necessary to perform the requirements of the contract. Since there is no requirement of a naturally born child in a marriage (civil union) contract, the state should not be sticking its nose it where it doesn't belong.

Being as they took this leap, then they must either take out the gender notation and/or get out of the “marriage” business altogether.

And nice to see you again, Nick.

Civil marriage is about children. It is about legally connecting fathers to their biological offspring. If you look at the law of marriage it is all about child support, property, inheritance, and other measures to ensure that when fathers conceive children, they remain responsible for their upbringing, and the support of the mothers.

Donald wrote: "Civil marriage is about children."

Really? So why does the state marry people who are unable or unwilling to have children?

Nick. Many religious groups recognize marriage equality and perform marriage ceremonies in their congregations:

Rev. William Sinkford, former President, Unitarian Universalist Church.: "The Unitarian Universalist Association has a long-standing and deeply held religious commitment to support full equality for gay people. We dedicate ourselves to work for justice, grounded in faith, which calls us to support everyone's full humanity, everyone's ability to love, and everyone's value in the world."

Your argument we have a right to codify our culture, is the same argument used to support slavery, segregation, and other needless and harmful discrimination.

As to bullying, remember it is you who wants to use the law to harm others by refusing to treat them as you would yourself. Gay people are not trying to deprive you of any legal rights you currently enjoy. They simply want equal treatment under the law as promised in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

Donald. As Susan notes, infertile people as well as those with no intent to have children are allowed to get married every day. Procreation ability or intent has never been a requirement for marriage. Making it one now, and only for gay people, is irrational.

It also ignores the fact same sex couples are raising children, just like many straight couples. Whether created through assisted methods or adopted, you offer no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for harming those families by denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.

Slavery used to be part of our culture too, Nick; equal rights for women was once anathema to our culture; interracial marriage was opposed by most people at one time.
As for your statement: "Please point to a religion that regularly performs same-sex marriages. It is not DONALD's religious belief, or MY religious belief. It is generally ALL religious beliefs, and also the belief of many non-religious people as well."
Religions that regularly perform same-sex marriages: Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, many Episcopalian churches, some Lutheran churches, Unitarian churches...
Not every religion in this country is Catholic or conservative Christian, Nick.
Regarding "After all, who wants to be called a "hater" or a "bigot"? Never mind that it has nothing to do with hate or bigotry, as long as that's what people believe."
Bigotry is as bigotry does, Nick, even if that hatred and bigotry is inspired by religious belief; honor killings are inspired by religious belief as well.

Susan wrote, "This is why the state should have never gotten into the "marriage" business. Marriage is a religious sacrament."
Actually, no, marriage may be a sacrament in some religions but not in all religions; Jewish marriage, for example, is NOT considered a sacrament, it is a contract - the couple actually signs a marriage contract in front of two witnesses, and that is the actual point at which the couple is married; no religious ceremony is required.
As for state involvement, civil marriage is a civil contract enforced by civil laws, so the state which is charged with enforcing and regulating ALL contracts is, of necessity, involved in the marriage contract as well.

I would add, Susan, that the role of the state in marriage laws very much involves regulation of property rights; one of the reason divorces can be so contentious is because of the properties involved.

Ok, "marriage" is a religious institution, practice, sacrament, contract.... Either way, I don't know that we can argue that the word marriage is derived from religion. The state should not have moved into this practice, but since they did, then yes, it should be "civil unions", which should be no more than a legal contract. As I mentioned above, the state should not designate who can enter a legal contract based on gender, unless a specific gender is needed to fulfill the contract.

Joyce, I would argue that divorces are so contentious because the people involved are often more interested in sticking it to the other person than they are in an equal an honest division of property and what is in the best interest of the children.

But I understand your point.

Susan. Marriage is a civil contract which includes over 1,138 federal rights and protections in addition to the state laws. Because property and child custody laws are a necessary part of marriage, there is no way for the government to not be involved. Religious organizations are allowed to sanctify marriages if and as they see fit, but they should not be able to decide what marriage is for those of other beliefs or no religious belief.

Because procreation ability or intent has never been a requirement in the US, gender is not a valid requirement to fulfill the contract.

Dan, I don't disagree with anything you have said.

Maybe I worded my comments poorly...
I don't think that "marriage" (the word) should have ever become any part of our legal system. It is a religious concept and the use of the same word for legal purposes of the state is what is, in part, is causing much of the debate/dispute (man/woman/homosexuality/the Bible/God).

The state should call it something else (civil union is fine), and gender should not be a designation as the state should not be able to decide, based on gender, who can enter a legal contract.

You should get "married" in a church.
The state should enforce a "civil union" (the contract of law). This would be whether it is a man and woman, a woman and woman, or a man and man.

Being as the state will never reverse it's position changing the word "marriage", then yes, homosexuals should be allowed equal tax and legal benefits and protections in regards to the legal contract now called marriage.

Sorry, I have said all this before to Donald, Joyce, Nick, etc., so I didn't repeat it,but this should cover it. :-)

It appears our only disagreement is about the government using the word "marriage".

Because marriage has always included property rights, I see no way for the state to not be involved. Any dispute requires legal intervention.

Marriage is the word recognized around the world to designate the most important relationship people choose to enter. Why should this recognition be denied to non believers? And if only recognized by religion, which religion or even which denomination of which religion?

If religious groups want to have "covenant marriage" or call it something else, that is also their choice. While religions can set their own requirements for who they choose to marry, they should not be able to decide this for others.

Sorry, I guess I am still being unclear...

Homosexuals should be given the same rights and protections under the laws that heterosexuals currently enjoy. This includes marriage (of and by the state) and my argument is still that the state should not be allowed to define who can enter into a legal contract based on gender...this IS discrimination.

As a separate but related matter; if the state/country had been wise back when they decided that they should step in to promote social behavior, they would not have used a name with an inherently religious background. Most (but not all) of the arguments against gay marriage are based on religious beliefs and would have been avoided if the state had chosen a different term (without the religious affiliation) when defining this specific contract.

I still don't understand why the word recognized around the world to designate the most important relationship people choose to enter, should be denied to non believers?

And, again, if you give that word to only religious believers, which believers? All, or only some, and how do you decide which religions?

I would also argue it is not just marriage equality that many religious groups oppose. Many oppose any legal recognition of equal rights for gay people, not just civil unions, but military service, housing, employment, and some what to return us to the days when simply being gay was grounds for imprisonment and torture with electric shock, emetics, castration, and lobotomies. And some want to go even further.

Search "Uganda gay bill" for starters if you have any doubts about this.

"HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION

Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Roman, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important. Western marriage has further been shaped by the doctrines and policies of the medieval Christian church, the demands of the Protestant Reformation, and the social impact of the Industrial Revolution.

When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties."

The practice and definition of marriage has and continues to change, this I do not dispute, but the name "marriage" is not what makes the union one of the most important, it is how each couple chooses to live their lives together. Like it or not, the word "marriage" is the dispute for most, and it is based on their religious background.

cont...

As far as my personal opinion goes...as long as we all have the same rights and protections under the law, period. I simply point out that much of this religious fight could have been avoided had it (regardless of gender of the individuals) been called something else by the state.

Colorado is currently considering "civil unions". If you check, you will find the Catholic church, Mormons, and others religious groups are opposed to any legal recognition of the relationships of gay people. While some claim the dispute is over the word "marriage", when "civil unions" are proposed, the truth comes out. Even second class citizenship for gay people is too much for some religious groups.

But again, if you give that word to only religious believers, which believers? Hindus, Wiccans, etc., or only some, and how do you decide which religions? Marriage was taking long before Christianity even became a religion. Should we restrict it to only Pagans?

Sorry, I am having issues with "pending comments" and I apologize if they show up more than once.

I realize that religions oppose homosexuality for a variety of reasons but this could all be put to bed by the separation of church and state. I do applaud religions that are now recognizing same sex marriage.

Because the word"marriage" is recognized as law by the state, it becomes a very grey area that could have been avoided. Marriage is defined by religion and by the stte...how can those who are religious not object to a different definition? I don't agree with them, but I understand the logic.

The First Amendment dictates that religions can choose who to "marry. It is not up for us to decide. People are drawn to the religion that either best suits them, or by their upbringing. By law, the only people forced into any religion in this country are children. It is not up to the state to decide what is the better religion or religious practices.

This has all been flogged to death, but I will repeat.

Church marriage is not relevant to marriage law. Churches are free to "marry" whomever they please. Civil marriage is a specific institution with a specific purpose. Civil marriage is about the law, and the law is focused on children conceived, their upbringing, and who is responsible for them. This is not subject to debate. Go look at the law. That is what it says. You may wish it were otherwise. You may want to change it, but that's what it is. There is nothing in the law about "love". The law spells out your responsibilities a a spouse. It does not compel childbearing. It does try to compel parental responsibility.

The redefinition of marriage might have little effect on me, if the activists who insist upon the redefinition were not also insisting on using the force of law to compel me to honor the marriages of which I disapprove. Again, you can argue that this is desirable, but the fact is that it most definitely affects me.

If proponents are serious about not attacking people of faith, and not disparaging the right of the faithful to practice their faiths, they will remove the threat of adding law that calls my disapproval a punishable "discrimination".

As long as they demand that I become a lawbreaker for doing what my faith demands, the redefinition is unacceptable.

Donald. You fail to show how your marriage has changed now that gay people are getting married.

Allowing gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect does not alter your marriage in any legal way. It does not redefine "what" marriage is, it only "who" can participate. Your marriage is not changed.

There is no law that requires procreation ability, intent, or even the ability to have sex. Again, the elderly and otherwise sterile people are allowed to marry, and do so every day. Even convicted child abusers, spouse abusers, rapists, etc. are allowed to marry. It is a fundamental right of the individual.

You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for harming same sex families by denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.

Donald, first there are new people reading and participating in the conversation. Repreat yourself or don't, it doesn't change the fact that the conversation continues.

Here is the Minnesota Statute in regards to civil marriage:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=517

I do not see any requirment for naturally born children, which thankfully Donald agrees with. Do children of gay couples deserve less rights and protections? If you say yes, then you must also apply this logic to heterosexual couples who adopt, use IVF, a seragate, etc. it cannot just be applied to children of homosexuals.

Dan, although I won't put words into Donald's mouth, I will say, from what I have read in the past, many fear that they won't be able to discriminate against something rejected by their religious belief, in their business and personal life. Many are also opposed to same-sex education being taught in schools. Apparently Jesus' words (or lack of) aren't quite as applicable for some reason, but I digress...

To this, I have said:
No one is forcing you to be in business. No one if forcing you to have friends who are gay. No one is forcing you to marry a man. No one is forcing you to send your child to public school, and no one is forcing you to stop running for public office (the school board included) to help change and sway laws and cirriculum. Fortunately the people get to decide who holds those offices.

"even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate."
(from Gill v. OPM)

Donald wrote: "As long as they demand that I become a lawbreaker for doing what my faith demands, the redefinition is unacceptable"

Donald, I would say that any Christian who does not abide by the laws of Leviticus and Exodus are not doing what their God/religion demands, but the reality is that Christianity has also evolved, just like marriage. The world and society evolves making things that used to be unacceptble, even deemed worthy of death by religion, no longer applicable.

Many people make choices that I find morally repugnant, in my opinion, but it is my personal opinion, just as your faith is yours. If you want to advocate for the ability to dicriminate against something because of your personal faith (even if it is currently the faith of the majority), we would be on the dangerous road of state sanctioned religion.

DOMA does not make policy for children. It merely makes clear that states are not compelled to honor marriages in other states that would not legal in their states. It also makes clear that for federal purposes,the definition of marriage is the traditional, longstanding one.

Susan - we "discriminate" constantly. I like some people and dislike others. I choose where I shop. What you suggest is not "state sponsored" anything. It is freedom to be left alone, and live my life without state interference. In this case in a very personal, subjective area.

So if I have it wrong, Donald, please correct me. Please tell us specifically, what the law will demand, that will force you to to go against what your faith demands.

Donald. The point is, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. Children are not required for marriage to remain a fundamental right.

You are sill free to discriminate in your personal life. If you run a business open to the public, you are required to treat all customers equally.

Tradition alone is no excuse for discrimination. You provide no legitimate governmental interest served by harming gay people and their families through denial of equal legal treatment.

And just to say it one more time...

The state should not be able to designate who can enter into a legal contract, based on gender, unless a specific gender is required to fulfill said contract.

Even if you argue against it for religious and/or moral reasons, you cannot dismiss this act of discrimination currently sanctioned by our state. It should be corrected.

Marriage traditions have changed frequently over the years. The tradition of prohibiting interracial marriage existed in this country until it was declared unconstitutional in 1967. Traditional marriage in the US would include that tradition. Polygamy was also tradition and remains popular in some countries. Same sex marriages dating back 4,000 years to ancient Egypt are also part of that tradition in Europe, Asia, Africa, and in the Americas before arrival of the Europeans.

Tradition has been the excuse used to justify slavery, segregation, animal abuse, child abuse, torture, and every other common practice that results in harm to another group. It is currently being used to justify harming gay people, thought the courts are recognizing traditions that harm others are not worth preserving by the government. While you can practice your religion in your church however you want, you should not be allowed to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of the population, including those churches that recognize marriage equality.

Justice Kennedy wrote of the founding fathers: "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."

Mr Hindin highlights a common confusion. Churches have had no monopoly on hatred and brutality. It is the flawed human beings who spew hatred and brutality. Churches have more often than not stood against evil. It is the access to power that corrupts the church, as it corrupts any human being. That is what our founders understood, and were careful to avoid.

That same corruption is at work with those who believe that they are righteous on this issue. They believe they have the right to "correct" the other side, and to use the power of the state to do it. They believe that what their opponents believe is irrelevant, because they are so wrong.

This is what the first amendment is about. The homosexual activists may not impose their beliefs on all of us by using the power of the state to achieve their agenda. The churches should likewise not be in the business of using the power of the state to achieve its ends.

A free society requires toleration. You have a right to be wrong, and I may not like it, but I leave you alone to do as you like, and you leave me alone to do as I like. The moment I start to "correct" you, we have trouble.

Good point, parents male and female and all adults must be responsible for children and laws were enacted to attempt to enforce these societal expectations protecting children. That won't change except that gay parents will also be recognized expected to follow the law. There are many married, previously married, unmarried, and gay adults that are providing healthy loving homes for children including devoutly religious individuals. The tragedy is that there are far to many who are not responsible to their children. Gay parents have children from previous heterosexual marriages, artificial insemination, adoption just like many other good parents. Again no harm to you. Civil marriage and religious marriage is not exclusive to fertile couples in most jurisdictions, otherwise the elderly wouldn not be alowed to marry and infertile couples would be compelled to divorce.

Donald. Using the law to deny to others the legal rights and protections you enjoy for yourself, cannot be considered tolerance. Treating others as you do yourself under the law is tolerance.

Those in support of marriage equality are not trying to take away any of your legal rights and protections. They simply want equal treatment under the law. Your church can, as they already do, refuse marriage, membership, etc, to anyone they choose for any reason, and many do. Some congregations still refuse to perform inter-racial and inter-faith marriages. That is their constitutional right. They do not however have the right to impose those beliefs on everyone else using the force of law.

Donald Lee wrote: "The homosexual activists may not impose their beliefs on all of us by using the power of the state to achieve their agenda."
How, exactly, would allowing same sex civil marriages have any impact at all on your beliefs?
When interracial marriage was legalized, I'm sure a lot of bigots were "inconvenienced" by seeing interracial couples in public, but that inconvenience did not justify imposing their bigotry on everyone.
No one is trying to "correct" you, Donald; right now, by keeping same sex marriage illegal you are the one imposing your beliefs and prejudices on the rest of us; legalizing same sex marriage will have NO effect on you.

We actually agree on many points here.
I did not state that churches have a monopoly on hatred and brutality only that Christianity and church hierarchy have a long history of brutally imposing their will on others. The vast majority of modern devout Christians I know are kind, generous, tolerant individuals. You only have to look at the history of Papal edicts, crusades, inquisitions, Czarist pogroms, the blood libel claims, holocaust, Conversos, the anti-Semitic rants of Martin Luther, 1950s anti-Semitism in Minnesota, etc, to find more than enough crimes against humanity in the not too distant past. Unfortunately the internet is full of hatred for all of us. Homosexual activists and heterosexual supporters do have the right guaranteed by the First Amendment to petition the state to redress a grievance namely discrimination and unequal treatment. Hence DOMA has ascended to the Supreme Court. Again affording gay Minnesotans equal protection under the Constitution does not diminish your right to practice your faith in any way. The Constitution and courts were also designed to protect the minority against the popular will of the majority. Gay marriage rights are no imposition on you.

Donald, I have no confusion on this issue, I have been at the point of the sword of Christian church taught and inspired anti-Semitism and racism. In addition to the anti-Semitic slurs and bullying I endured in the 1950s and 60s, my Boy Scout troop wasn't allowed to meet in a church basement because some of the boys were black. That others hate has no relevance to this conversation about conservative religion's suppression of gay gay rights.

Many politicians and religious leaders who speak against marriage equality are fond of claiming marriage has always been between one man and one woman for thousands of years. This of course ignores it was often one man and as many women as he could afford. It also ignores the documentation showing same sex marriages have existed at various times and places throughout history. The recent Supreme Court brief by WBC even admits same sex marriage existed before Noah, but of course according to them, that was the reason for the flood.

As you note, when those opposed to equal rights do recognize there have always been gay people, it is to blame them for the downfall of civilizations, again ignoring that prohibition of being gay was often part of the restrictive attempts at social control that accompanies collapse.

Hopefully, we will keep moving toward equal treatment for all, as promised in the founding documents and required by the constitution.

Agreed. Now I should probably move away from the computer and be productive for part of the day. Enjoy the day, and game - if that's what you choose. I will be catching up on my political shows and material from the week. :-)

Susan, what if the person you love is a family member? Or what if you love more than one person? Or what if the person you love is 14?

The right to marry the person you love is not an inherent, "unalienable" right. It is a qualified right, subject to the limitations imposed by society. Unalienable rights cannot be limited or qualified by society. Everyone has a right not to be a slave, regardless of their circumstances. Not everyone has the right to vote. You have to be a legal citizen 18 years or older, subject to additional limitations to be imposed by the States. Similarly, not everyone has the right to "marry the person they love". That is limited by many restrictions, therefore it cannot be considered an unalienable right.

Nick. Fundamental civil rights may be restricted, but only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated.

Freedom of speech for example, may be restricted when that speech causes harm such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, inciting a riot, or death threats. Religion is protected, but you can't stone people just because your religious beliefs tell you to. Voting and marriage are not denied, but only delayed by age requirements. Restrictions on incest, child abuse, and the two person limit are also reasonable restrictions approved by the courts.

"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.” (Constitutional Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies in their prop. 8 filing.)

So far the courts have agreed there is no legitimate governmental interest served by denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments. Denial of equality provides nothing to opposite sex couples, yet causes needless harm to same sex couples and their families.

You don't have to convince me, it's those who argue because of religious reasons that focus on the word marriage as it would apply to homosexuals. Honestly, I really don't care one way or the other whether the state calls it marriage, civil union, or a commitment that some do away with easier than a gum wrapper, my only point is that it must be the same for everyone (in regards to civil marriage) and if it had not been called marriage, many of today's arguments would be moot.

Susan. First, thanks for your support of equal rights.

And while perhaps not an important point for you, I believe as the current battle over "Civil Unions" in Colorado shows, the argument over the word isn't the real issue. Those most opposed to marriage equality are also opposed to gay people being treated as fully human. If you look at all of the attempts to include civil partnerships under any name, there has always been opposition by the Catholic, Mormon, and many other churches. NOM, FRC, and the other anti-gay organizations all use religious belief as their basis for denial of equal treatment. Many make it clear they do not only oppose equal rights, but want to impose legal punishments for gay people, based on a few mistranslated ancient verses.

So while I appreciate your support, I think if you look closely, you will realize the struggle isn't just about a word. It is about maintaining a tradition of prejudice and discrimination that uses the law to stigmatize gay people as less than fully human, and therefore not deserving of equal human rights.

I don't disagree, but if you read objections from the regular people living their day-to-day lives outside of the religious authority and leaders, you will find that their objection is the word. Many have written here on Patch that they would be okay with the same rights and benefits, as long as it is labelled civil unions. The people eventually make changes to the organization from the bottom. It is a slow and painful process, but it gets done. Let's hope that more Christians understand the importance and even imperative that we should all be treated equally by the law.

As I said before, I want it to be the same for everyone, no matter what the state calls it, just so they call it that for all civil marriages. I do, however, think I understand why it would be important to be recognized as the same, meaning that inclusion is the goal, not a new standard; and I completely agree with that, as well.

Recent history has also shown even where "civil unions" carry most or all of the legal requirements of marriage, they are not treated the same by those tasked with following them. Just what a "Domestic Partnership" or "Civil Union" means, is not fully understood. But the word "marriage" is understood around the world. While the legal details do in fact vary in different countries, everyone still has an understanding of what it means, and that they are required to treat that marriage as they would any other.

Civil Unions, while a step in the right direction because they give some protections to real families including children, are still a problem because they single out gay people for less that equal treatment, and the courts realized a long time ago, separate can never be equal, and denial of equality is stigmatizing and dehumanizing, and results in harm to those judged as less than equal. The Ca. supreme court explained it fairly clearly: "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." (p.117)

"the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples. Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship. Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite sex couples.
(p.118 In re Marriage Cases)

Both of these comments and references are excellent arguments and precise precedents why we shouldn't use civil union for one partnership and marriage for another.

May I quote this for future debate/discussion along with the references?
"Civil Unions, while a step in the right direction because they give some protections to real families including children, are still a problem because they single out gay people for less that equal treatment, and the courts realized a long time ago, separate can never be equal, and denial of equality is stigmatizing and dehumanizing, and results in harm to those judged as less than equal."

I wonder, how many of those 1100+ legal and tax protections and benefits can be applied to current civil unions? If it is even one, then it is not equal.

Susan. Yes, please do. But allow me to correct a spelling mistake, and edit:

"Civil Unions, while a step in the right direction because they give some protections to real families including children, are still a problem because they single out gay people for less than equal treatment. The courts realized a long time ago, separate can never be equal, and denial of equality is stigmatizing and dehumanizing. It inevitably results in harm to those judged as less than equal."

Fair enough. I thought we had crossed paths here on Patch before the election but I am not having much luck in finding the thread. Maybe it was someone else.

I may have asked you this before, but have you considered writing a blog on Patch? I'm going through your comments on the Chick-Fil-A thread and you make many great points without being condescending, angry, or taking any hateful bait. I admire that quality tremendously and am still working on it.

It would be good to have a strong, articulate, knowledgeable and level-headed person write on this subject.

Dan, are you in Napa or is that just the Patch that you joined originally? If so, how on earth did you find this thread?

While looking to see if we had connected here before, I also went through some of this thread again. Look to the top, about four or five comments down and you can see what I was referencing earlier. I read this type of thing over and over in the last year.

Napa was just my first patch, I discovered from a link on something to do with equal rights for gay people. Probably prop 8. But I've spent a lot of time fishing and swimming in Minn. since my first visit in '57, and would like to see the state honor its tradition of fairness and equal treatment for all citizens.

I've seen the death and destruction that results from prejudice and discrimination that many do not. When you have experienced it on both a personal and professional level, the importance of overcoming the harm becomes motivating. I am not just being dramatic when I try to remind everyone that prejudice and discrimination result in needless suffering and death, both here and around the world.

I do not think you are dramatic, I think you point out things that most people do not consider. That's why I thought a blog might be a good idea, but it's not for everyone. Donald can tell you that blogging about something that half the country disagrees with is not always a pleasant experience, but I certainly admire and congratulate him on his willingness to do so. Sharing information that may not be seen as mainstream can bring contempt but the words must be said (and written) so more and more can come to understand the importance and REAL issues of the debate.

Dan, you are being overly dramatic when you equate the current definition of marriage with prejudice and discrimination that will result in "death and destruction", and if you in deed had experienced such things, why on earth would you cheapen it by extending it to the definition of marriage? No death or destruction results from it, and you must know that.

Real prejudice and real discrimination that results in real death and real destruction is something like the Iranian Christians who are regularly executed by the government for converting from Islam. By equating the so-called struggles of gay people in the United States with the kinds of horrors that actually exist in the world just cheapens the struggles of the people who endure those horrors.

Nick. The problem with comparing harm is that you can usually point to something worse, which is then used to excuse the lesser harm. Yet no unnecessary harm is acceptable.

Have you heard about the Uganda bill that imposes the death penalty for being gay? 7 other countries still impose death, and others prison, for being gay.

Did you know it was illegal to be gay in every state in the US until 1960 and some of those laws remained in effect until 2003 when the Supreme Court finally declared them unconstitutional? Or that some states still have those unconstitutional laws on the books and want to bring them back? Or that gay people were locked up in institutions and tortured with electric shock, emetics, castration, and lobotomies?

Did you hear about the 2 teen suicides last week alone that resulted from anti-gay bullying? This continues to happen all too often, as a result of the prejudice promoted by denial of equal treatment under the law.

So while denial of marriage equality may not directly cause harm to the point of death, the prejudice used to justify it is the same one used by some here to justify hate crimes including murder, and around the world to justify imprisonment and death. It also results in self destruction, both fast and slow. Prejudice is the same, no matter how mild or severe, in that it inevitably causes needless suffering and death.

It is already recognized in 10 states and the rest of North America, parts of Central and South America, and other parts of the world.

Yet no one has been able to show how their marriage has changed now that same sex couples are allowed to participate under the laws currently in effect for straight people.

Absolutely, Dan; expanding civil rights (and civil marriage is certainly a civil right) does not diminish other people's rights one iota.

We agree removing racial prejudice from the law has not removed it from the hearts and minds of all of those already infected. But at least the government no longer teaches it as legally and rationally valid.

Laws, social policies, and social support systems that deny equality continue teaching irrational prejudice as if it were rational and valid. Many fail to question the harm that results, because it is "the law".

So while removing discrimination from the law won't end prejudice, at least it will end the harm caused by our own government, both directly by denial of legal rights, and by the stigmatization and dehumanization that results from denial of legal equality.

Removing discrimination from the law may not be a sufficient condition to end the harm. But it is an essential ingredient.

What God wanted? Wouldn't most Christian religions say that God will make the final judgement, not humans? Why would God create homosexuals? Why did Jesus not speak a word about the supposed abomination that is homosexuality? Why is it okay to follow some of God's rules/laws/words but not others?

Nature is what it will be, but why did God allow humans to find the science that enables those not able to naturally conceive children, to do so in other ways?

Procreation is not a requirement of civil marriage and we have the separation of church and state in this country for good reason. As Mike stated above; "your religious beliefs are perfect for you." Do not impose those beliefs on others.

mj. No matter what you choose to believe, the reality remains; same sex couples are raising children as they have done throughout history. Whether adopted or created through assisted methods, we do not treat families differently based on whether or not they even have children, let alone how those children came to be a part of the family.

We are here today because some people believe God wants us to ignore the Golden Rule and harm same sex couple families by refusing to treat them as we would ourselves under the law. Yet, our constitution requires equal treatment for all persons.

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." ( American Anthropological Association)

From a famous letter submitted to Dr Laura after a similar quote from Leviticus:

"1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

to be cont...

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16."

Unless you live by all of these standards, I wonder why Leviticus 18:22 is worth noting...

Susan. That letter remains perhaps the best response to this frequently mistranslated and misinterpreted "clobber passage" I have ever seen.

No one today even attempts to follow the many prohibitions in Leviticus, yet they always bring out this verse to justify ignoring the golden rule.

And yet many scholars understand this passage was addressing Pagan ritual sex and has nothing to do with forming committed relationships based on mutual love and respect.

"This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in early Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position, the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the role of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure." (religious tolerance.org)

No, 'MJ', I'm saying you should keep your biblical literalism where it belongs, in your church, not in a discussion of civil law. You are perfectly free to believe your creation story if you want, but it is irrelevant to the current discussion.

mj, I don't think anyone has written anything of the sort. I wrote of the absurdity of people holding this particular passage to a higher level of importance than the many other passages in the same book, that they choose to ignore. Others have correctly pointed out that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. If you point to what the bible says about homosexuality, you must question why God continues to create homosexuals.

And may I point out that the bible was written by men, not God. What should you believe when men say that homosexuality is an abomination, but God continues to create homosexuals?

Who says same sex couples are arguing for church marriages? The issue here is civil marriage; churches, synagogues, mosques and temples will remain free to decide which marriages they want to honor even when same sex couples are allowed to enter into civil marriages.

Marriage provides over 1,138 federal legal rights and protections in addition to the state laws. Gay people want those rights and protections for the same wide variety of reasons straight people demand them for themselves. Marriage has a stabilizing effect on relationships among the many other benefits it provides.

But we are talking about the legal civil right of marriage, not the religious sanctification of those marriages. Churches are free to choose the rites they perform and for whom. While some religious congregations recognize marriage equality and perform same sex weddings for their members, they cannot be required to do so. Marriage can be performed by a judge, county clerk, or Elvis impersonator in Vegas.

Recognizing legal equality does not require any church to recognize it, but denial of legal equality restricts religious freedom.

Wrong, the First Amendment gives churches the right to refuse to marry those they deem unfit. The Catholic Church has been doing this for centuries.

I think you are confusing the issue. Gay marriage is not about getting married in a church, it is about equal rights under law, in regards to CIVIL marriage.

Your fear is unfounded.

No church can be required to perform any rite they choose not to. Some churches still refuse to marry inter-racial and inter-faith couples. That is their legal right.

But just to reaffirm that principal, most of the marriage equality laws have spelled out that no religious group can be required to perform any marriage.

Yet some churches already perform same sex ceremonies. Laws that deny equality, deny those churches the right to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. Recognizing legal equality does not require any church to recognize it, but denial of legal equality restricts religious freedom.

Hogwash.

http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/blog-whats-the-harm-in-same-sex-marriage

http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/politically-correct-vandals

The attitude and agenda of proponents of same sex marriage is to prohibit people who disapprove from doing things that might reflect that disapproval. It is a direct threat to people of faith being able to exercise their faiths. Proponents take this directly to slavery and segregated lunch counters, but marriage is about behavior, not ancestry. We choose our behavior. The law should not, and cannot command me to approve of your behavior, no matter what it is.

Donald Lee wrote: 'Proponents take this directly to slavery and segregated lunch counters, but marriage is about behavior, not ancestry. We choose our behavior. The law should not, and cannot command me to approve of your behavior, no matter what it is.'
Allowing same sex couples to enter into the same civil contract known as marriage that only opposite sex couples are currently allowed to enter into does not require your approval, Donald. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are disgusted by the sight of interracial couples; they are free to disapprove all they want, but they are not free to deny those couples equal rights under the law.

Again Donald, what specifically is it that you want to do, that will become illegal, once gay marriage becomes legal?

Same sex couples today can do pretty much what they please in private as long as they don't bother me, I don't bother them. The problem arrives when the law demands that I must photograph their wedding, or my church must host their reception by virtue of having rented out the room to the VFW last year. You can say that this is good or bad, but it most definitely affects me, and it effectively forces me to participate in ways I may not want to. To the extent that participation is in my view immoral, it demands that I violate my conscience.

These are facts. I don't see how any reasonable person can deny them, unless these facts are inconvenient to The Agenda.

Marriage law is not a bucket of goodies. It is a specific contract that spells out the responsibilities of couples who conceive children. Homosexual couples are not biologically capable of conceiving children. Marriage does not apply to them.

Redefining marriage as a secular "love license" is just a bad idea. It would necessarily destroy the norms that we currently have on parenthood. Some say this is good. I don't. It may or may not be desirable, but it definitely affects me, and my children and grandchildren.

Proponents appear willfully blind to any damage that will be caused by this redefinition. They would do well to extend some of the tolerance they demand to their opponents.

Donald, I'm not sure that these examples are specific to you, as I think you have used them before, with back-up references.

If you CHOOSE to do business with the public in this country/state, you must follow the laws of the land. I am sure there are Muslim men, who own and operate businesses in this country, that would prefer not to have women as customers because of some of the things written in the Quran, yet the law says they must, and they do. Civil law and equal rights trumps your personal beliefs when it comes to a business serving the public....that's just the way it is in this country.

Donald. Procreation ability or intent has never been a marriage requirement of any US law. The elderly and otherwise sterile couples get married every day. Yet gay couples are in fact raising children both biologically related and adopted. The procreation argument fails to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for harming gay couples and their families. It provides nothing to opposite sex parent families, while causing needless harm to same sex couple families.

If you have a business open to the public, you may be required to serve all of the public. This is a reasonable requirement resulting from the refusal to serve the Irish, Jewish, or black populations in the past. While free to discriminate in your church and home, you should not be allowed to do so in the public square.

You fail to demonstrate any "damage" caused by treating others as you would yourself under the law. Tolerance requires treating others as you would yourself. Intolerance is clearly displayed by refusal to treat others equally under the law.

Chew on that. The State has the right to force Muslims to do what their faith abhors.
Secular trumps God's law.

Our foundation is freedom, not compulsion. We rule ourselves, not each other. The example of a Muslim doing business with women is a good one. Where do we get the right to force a muslim doctor to treat women? The solution is NOT to force the doctor to do as YOU think best. It is to ensure that other doctors are not prevented from serving that woman.

Donald Lee wrote: 'Homosexual couples are not biologically capable of conceiving children. Marriage does not apply to them.'
At 62 I'm no longer capable of bearing children, so I guess marriage does not apply to me either; too bad, I'll have to tell my fiance our plans are illegal.
As for 'it effectively forces me to participate in ways I may not want to. To the extent that participation is in my view immoral, it demands that I violate my conscience', perhaps you are not aware that discrimination is already illegal and will remain illegal whether or not same sex couples are allowed to marry. I'm sure there are people who are quite bothered by interracial couples as well, to which I say, too damn bad, and I say the same to all those business owners who would rather not allow Jews or people of color to patronize their businesses.

Donald Lee wrote: "Chew on that. The State has the right to force Muslims to do what their faith abhors. Secular trumps God's law. Our foundation is freedom, not compulsion. We rule ourselves, not each other. The example of a Muslim doing business with women is a good one. Where do we get the right to force a muslim doctor to treat women? The solution is NOT to force the doctor to do as YOU think best. It is to ensure that other doctors are not prevented from serving that woman."

In other words, you think a business owner should be allowed to post a sign saying, "No Jews or Catholics Allowed on the Premises". Good to know.

Doctors are expected to take, and practice by the guidlines of, an oath; which says in part:

"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."

'Above all, I must not play at God."

"I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm."

"If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

I would think that anyone CHOOSING to take this oath is willing to follow it.

Donald, I think it's amusing that you implied my father was unpatriotic because he did not want to give up his fight to be able to vote without a physical or financial hardship, yet you would choose to deny children and homosexuals the same rights, benefits, and protections under the law as heterosexual couples and their children currently enjoy. Why should they be denied because of your personal faith? Is that patriotic or even what this country is about?

A doctor who takes such an oath retains the right to make choices as to who he treats, and how. One of those choices is to defer to others. His choice. His conscience. This is worlds apart from giving an aggrieved discrimination "victim" the right to *force* that doctor to do it.

(BTW - My "chew on it" was aimed at Susan's comment. Someone else snuck in between)

Donald. Allowing gay people to participate under the laws currently in effect for straight people does not change any of those laws that determine what marriage is. It does not "redefine" what marriage is. It only expands who can participate. The marriages of straight people are not altered in any legal way.

While other laws may require those who choose to operate a business open to the public to treat everyone equally, you are not required to serve the public. Yet even if you choose to do so, you are not required to change your beliefs, but only your behavior when dealing with your customers.

You fail to show how treating gay couples equally under the law "destroys the norm we currently have on parenthood." Gay couples are already raising children through adoption and assisted reproduction. Parenthood has not changed for opposite sex parents, and you provide no explanation of why or how it would. All you have is fear mongering about future consequences.

You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment as promised in our founding documents, and required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

No worries, Donald, I chewed on it for about four seconds. Maybe Joyce can speak in more detail about the Hippocratic Oath and what it means to those who take it. My guess is that if a Muslim doctor was walking down the street and there was a woman in labor ready to deliver, he would help her, in part, due to that oath. I think the life of the baby would trump the words in the Quran....but that's just a guess.

Yes, in choosing to do business with the public, you are agreeing to follow the secular laws over God's laws. After all, who's God has the correct answer? Should we allow people of all faiths to put their own spin on secular law as they deem necessary? Or is it just the Christians because they are currently in the majority in this country? That's a bad precedent being as Christians may not always be in the majority in this country.

Donald. What if all white doctors refused to treat black patients? Not all areas have black doctors readily available. But if we can use our beliefs to deny equal treatment, we could easily go back to not allowing black people to become doctors or even attend college. This is one area where the "slippery slope" argument has validity. If you allow discrimination, you allow discrimination of all kinds. And that is why the principal of equal treatment of all persons under the law is enshrined in our founding documents and required by the constitution.

A slightly more pointed case is the woman who advertised for a roommate at a college. (I cannot find the reference!) and got sued by either the prospective roommate, or the college. I don't remember.

This is a case where the woman offering the apartment was blatantly "discriminating". (I don't remember if she wanted a Christian, or a woman, or what) Nonetheless, I think we would all agree that she has a right to choose her ROOMMATE without the prospective roommate having the right to FORCE her.

Equality under the law is one thing. Clearly the LAW must not treat different people differently. Government officials using discretion to favor or disparage one person over another is not acceptable. It is not so clear that the law should be in the business of making our choices for us, or arming potential those we personally favor or disfavor with a legal club to get what they want.

The latter is what we have these days, and it's a bad thing, not a good thing.

I have a right to choose my dorm roommate on whatever basis I feel like. You have a right to choose your friends. A doctor has a right to choose his patients.

If you choose to marry your brother, I have an absolute right to be busy photographing someone else on your wedding day.

Donald. You are addressing public accommodations, not same sex marriage equality.

When offering a public accommodation, you are offering it to the public.

When choosing a roommate, it is best to do so privately. But if you advertise to the public, you open it to all of the public.

But in a college dorm, you don't have a right to choose, though colleges try to consider compatibility. Anyone could get a private room while paying for a double, simply by rejecting the assignment by the college, on a variety of grounds, if it were your choice. Clearly, requiring a reasonable excuse is a reasonable requirement. It must rely on something more than irrational prejudice.

(And yes, you have the right to be busy with something else, but not to refuse a customer because you don't agree with their choice of a legally qualified marriage partner. And no one has the right to marry a sibling. That is irrational fear mongering.)

This excuse fails to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of marriage equality.

So in Dan Johnson's world, when marriage equality is achieved, I no longer have a right to be busy somewhere else on that wedding day. The person asking to be served has a right to demand an explanation if I am busy, and the burden of proof is on me to prove that my reasons are "legitimate".

... and somehow this does not affect me?

... and generates goodwill toward those making the demands?

On what planet is this a good thing, and for whom?

No Donald. Marriage equality does not require you to treat everyone equally.

Public accommodations laws require you to provide your services to everyone equally in those jurisdictions where such laws apply. Your complaint here is with public accommodations laws, not marriage equality.

You can be busy elsewhere, and they can't compel you to work. But if you offer a service and then withdraw it because you don't approve of something that has nothing to do with your ability but with your approval of whom they are, then you can be in trouble in jurisdictions that have public accommodations laws.

Your desire to discriminate in public accommodations fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right by the government.

No, not my opinion, but a fact of law.

No church can be compelled to perform marriage or any other rite they choose not to. They deny marriage to inter-faith couples all the time. The Catholic church denies marriage to those who have been divorced. (They get around divorce by granting annulments, even after decades of marriage and children have been raised, but that is their right.) Some churches require counseling with the minister. Churches can set their own requirements.

But again, in states that have changed the law to recognize marriage equality, most have specified no church can be required to perform any marriage, even though that is already protected by the first amendment as well as case law.

This is nothing more than speculation and it is not based on historical facts. In fact history and examples point to the exact opposite.

MJ, you forget that we have separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment; NO church has been required to perform interfaith marriages, even though such marriages have been legal for a very long time.

Again, your fear is unfounded, unsupported, and unsupportable.

The first amendment as well as case law allow churches to deny marriage to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose, and they do, without any legal problem.

Mj, this was discussed at great length yesterday. If you have the time, you might want to read above why separate is not equal, and how making a new standard does not work. Equal rights under the law, not somewhat equal rights.

Um - people fought for "Civil Rights" via "Civil Unions" for quite a while but Conservatives fought them and denied them "Civil Unions" which would have meant that gay folks would have been treated the same under the law but could not get "married".

So of course since Conservatives fought against Civil Unions and gays were not successful with that there was really no reason to keep fighting that battle and instead why not go for Marriage Equality.

What I found funny was as soon as Marriage Equality starting looking likely and gay folks were starting to get married in states - and particularly after for the first time states actually voted to allow gay marriage - suddenly Conservatives were all for Civil Unions and asking "Why can't you just want Civil Unions"....

And has been pointed out ad nauseam, this is simply a false argument and an incorrect assumption. You have been given several examples where churches can still refuse to marry those they deem unfit. This hasn't changed for centuries in this country, regardless of what civil law says about marriage, yet you refuse to acknowledge them. At this point, I can only assume that you are fear mongering as your statements don't seemed to be based on fact and you are predicting an unprecedented outcome that millions in this country would fear.

Again, your fear is unfounded. The first amendment as well as case law allows churches to deny marriage to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose, and they do, without any legal problem.

Additionally, the new laws recognizing equality reaffirm existing law that make it clear no church can be punished for refusing to perform a marriage:

"On November 6, 2012, ballot Question 6 informed voters that the Civil Marriage Protection Act allows same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage license, protect clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs, and affirm that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith." (wiki)

It is a bizarre suggestion that because someone objects to the redefinition of marriage, that it suggests a crusade to seek out and reject homosexuals. Why would anyone do that? One of the beauties of a free economy is that we don't have to care who those we buy from or sell to are. In the marketplace, all I really care about is that you give me what I want at an acceptable price. You sell me a T-shirt, and I give you $10. What possible reason would I have to ask about your sex life or morality?

Many of the freedoms that I defend are things that I would never do myself. For instance, I would defend the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie. I am not a Nazi, nor do I support their agenda, yet I support their right to express themselves, even when horribly offensive. That is as it must be. The 1st amendment is worthless if it only applies to inoffensive speech and action.

This is a measure of whether someone is motivated by principle. It's fairly easy to spot someone who is motivated by self interest because the principles change when they are inconvenient.

Christians accept, as a core part of faith that they are sinners; that they are not capable of doing the "right thing" every time and in every circumstance. Everyone is a sinner. Everyone is "wrong" at some point.

It is not hypocrisy to fall short of your ideals.

Donald. Allowing gay people to participate under the laws currently in effect for straight people does not "redefine" marriage. It does not change any of those laws that determine what marriage is. It only expands who can participate under the same rules currently in effect for straight couples. The marriages of straight people are not altered in any legal way. Yet same sex couples are harmed by denial of equal treatment.

Your first amendment argument seems to contradict you desire to refuse photography services, or lodging to same sex couples.

No one is trying to take away your first amendments rights. The problem is your desire to deny their 5th and 14th amendment rights to equal treatment under the law.

Marriage is a fundamental right. Everyone qualifies for fundamental rights by virtue of being alive, though a fundamental right may be denied or delayed, but only if the government can demonstrate a compelling and legitimate governmental interest for doing so.You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law.

It is not bizarre to suggest that if someone objects to the redefinition of marriage BECAUSE of their faith, that they would be a hypocrite to not abide by all demands put on them by their faith. If someone finds homosexuality a sin and immoral, why would they choose to associate, in any way, with homosexuals? Because it is often convenient. For some, convenience trumps faith yet they still pull out their bible and scream about and against gay marriage.

You wrote: "In the marketplace, all I really care about is that you give me what I want at an acceptable price."

You also wrote: "The problem arrives when the law demands that I must photograph their wedding, or my church must host their reception by virtue of having rented out the room to the VFW last year. You can say that this is good or bad, but it most definitely affects me, and it effectively forces me to participate in ways I may not want to. To the extent that participation is in my view immoral, it demands that I violate my conscience."

cont...

And: "The homosexual activists may not impose their beliefs on all of us by using the power of the state to achieve their agenda."

We needed the power of the state to tell us that slavery was illegal, that paying women less than men for the same job is illegal, that women should be able to vote, that African Americans cannot be forced to ride in the back of the bus….I could go on. Many, many people found these things immoral and they violated their consciences, yet to achieve a country where all men <and women> are created equal, the law must step in when the people refuse to oblige.

Let's put a fine point on this.

The Nazis are marching in Skokie. I run a corner grocery in Skokie. The Nazis need bottled water because it's a hot day. I disapprove of them, and want them to go away.

Do I have a right, as a store owner, to refuse to sell them water in my store - to refuse them service? May I legally just close my store that day, or do their 1st amendment rights compel me to serve them. ... public accommodation? discriminate on the basis of belief/religion?

The Nazis and I keep our rights only when we have a right to avoid each other. When the Nazis can compel me to sell to them - supporting their activities - or I can compel them to go away - suppressing their expression, we both lose.

First, as an American, you can choose to be a business owner but if you do, you must agree to follow the laws of the state when operating said business. Second, as a business owner, you can choose what days to be open and closed - if the march is planned, I may choose to be closed. If you are open, it looks to me (I'm not a lawyer) that it depends on why you would refuse to serve the Nazis...if Skokie was in California instead of Illinois, that is. I don't know what Minnesota will do.

"In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.”

cont...

“In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.”

So, increasingly, I am not free to choose my customers, but must defend my reasons for choosing my customers (roommates... tenants.... employees) in court. As Dan Johnson keeps reminding us, he believes that the burden of proof should be on me to prove that I have a "legitimate" reason for my choices. The burden is not on those aggrieved to prove that there is something wrong with my actions.

Such "protected classes" have a legal club to force me to serve them, and it is my burden to prove I did nothing wrong!

It seems to me this creates a huge incentive for more people to get themselves declared to be be part of a protected class. I hope you see the relevance clearly.

When everyone has a legal "club" to get what they want, it will be "fair", but it will no longer be a free society.

I have a right to serve who I choose in my business, or at least I should, just as you are free to choose which grocery store to patronize. My choices should be mine, and I should be innocent until proven guilty. These are fundamental to our law. We tinker with these principles in pursuit of illusory "fairness" at our peril.

Susan. Great response. While not the law in all jurisdictions, discrimination should not be allowed without a rationally valid reason, and prejudice fails to qualify.

Donald. Your fine point seems like a diversion to public accommodations law, avoiding the issue of the fundamental right of marriage. I see nothing in your discussion that justifies denial of a fundamental right by the government.

Your desire to discriminate for any reason you choose resulted in segregation. It will do so again in some form if allowed.

It is not about being "fair", it is about being equal. You ARE innocent until PROVEN guilty of denying someone else their civil rights. This is usually done in the form of a civil lawsuit. You are free to make your choices, but if they go against the law, or infringe on someone's rights, you will be held accountable.

You wrote: "The burden is not on those aggrieved to prove that there is something wrong with my actions." Innocent until proven guilty. How is this any different that a civil suit? If someone feels you have violated their civil rights, they must take you to court, yes? It seems to me that they are being forced to prove that you have violated their rights. You are not being forced to prove you haven't...the burden is on the accuser.

Thanks, Dan, but I can't really take the credit. Whenever I use quotes, it means I found something written by someone else. I used to always add the link to the source, but some links are being rejected by Patch lately, so I've given up on trying. The editors don't seem to know why some are being 'rejected' but it does seem to happen more frequently than it did in the past.

I found this info on LegalZoom. I've never really considered them as a source, but a Google search brought this up, and I thought the cases sited were appropriate.

The rules of civil and criminal court are very different. Discovery, for instance, is often used as a weapon. It imposes huge costs on the defendant long before guilt is established, much less proven. This is punishment enough if a member of a protected class wants to target me. Look at the people who go around and make money bringing lawsuits based on the ADA.

http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/2012/09/professional-ada-disability-troll-scott.html

The Rule of Law is intended to define a "bright line" where normal people can be confident that they are on the right side of the law. Discrimination law turns this on its head, asserting that certain choices that I make may be illegal, based on the perception of someone else.

Suppose one member of a same-sex couple walks into my photography studio, and asks me to photograph his wedding. He doesn't have a sign on his forehead and does not hint at the sex of the spouse. I say "nope, I'm busy". He sues, maybe because there may be a payoff. I'm faced with the task of proving that I had a "valid" reason for being busy. Maybe I just wanted to take that day off and watch football. Nope - that's not a good enough alibi.

It's bad enough when this sort of thing is based on race, where the protected class DOES have a "sign on his forehead" saying so. "sexual preference" discrimination is absolutely invisible unless explicitly shared. It's not only a club, it's a concealed weapon.

Susan. If you haven't noticed, I believe in supporting assertions with documentation on occasion, and you found a good quote.

I too have had links rejected here, so have gone to citations instead.

But Donald's diversion to public accommodations law is not directly related to marriage equality. It is just an attempt to justify discrimination. It fails to provide a rational excuse for the denial of the fundamental right of marriage.

Donald. Again, your complaint is with public accommodations laws that protect on the basis of race and sexual orientation. Your fear of being sued because you are busy is unfounded. There must be a clear demonstration your denial of services is based on your prejudice, not workload.

But again, public accommodations laws are independent of marriage equality laws. While some states have both, some have neither. But they are separate issues.

You fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage by the government.

"While LGBT youth think about and attempt suicide more often than their straight counterpart, most LGBT youth do not attempt suicide. LGBT youth have many of the same risk factors as straight youth, but many LGBT have more or more severe risk factors. It is important to note that being LGBT is not a risk factor in and of itself; however, the minority stressors that LGBT individual encounter - such as discrimination and harassment - are directly associated with suicidal behavior as well as indirectly with risk factors for suicide." (American Association of Suicidology)

I have to believe that this includes community, all the way up to our local and state leaders. If our leaders are saying that what our young gay friends and family are feeling is wrong and/or immoral, they should suppress these feelings, and even worse, that they feel that homosexuality (or acting on it) is a CHOICE, one must come to the conclusion that our leaders, in their ignorance and/or denial of the science, are hurting these children as well.

Yes, I used the word ignorance - some may take offense. If one either chooses not to read the science, or not believe it, there is ignorance when they are speaking incorrectly on the subject.

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves." (Golinski v.)

"Ideology assailants report that their crimes stem from their negative beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality that they perceive other people in the community share. They see themselves as enforcing social morals." APA

"Sexual orientation discrimination takes many forms. Severe anti gay prejudice is reflected in the high rate of harassment and violence directed toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals in American society. Numerous surveys indicate that verbal harassment and abuse are nearly universal experiences among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Also, discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in employment and housing appears to remain widespread." APA

Why is a prohibition on marrying siblings not "discrimination"?

Donald. While fundamental rights may be restricted or delayed, the government must demonstrate a compelling and legitimate governmental interest for doing so.

Incest has been shown to be harmful in several ways. The courts have determined the harm demonstrated provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny that choice of a partner. Age restrictions and ability to demonstrate "informed consent", have also been determined to be legitimate interests.

You provide no such interest in denying this fundamental right to otherwise qualified same sex couples.

So marrying your sibling, for instance your brother, is not OK, because there is "harm demonstrated" in incest, and it is "legitimate" to deny that "right". Legal limitations on marriage by age are also "determined" permissible, presumably also due to some determination of "harm".

Someone, somewhere is deciding what "harm" is, and how much "harm" is required to allow interference in this "fundamental right". I also presume that definitions of "harm" are explicitly devoid of any moral dimension.

This is a mighty arbitrary legal world. It's the kind of world that breeds abuse and overreach.

Donald. "Someone somewhere" is our three branch constitutional government. Those decisions are based on laws that require equal treatment for all persons unless a compelling governmental interest can be demonstrated.

Surely we can agree allowing someone to marry a two year old is harmful in that it does not allow choice of the two year old (at least). At what age we draw the line can be debated, but don't you agree age is a reasonable delay (not a denial) of a fundamental right?

Incest has also been demonstrated through numerous legislative hearings, court findings, as well as science, to be inherently harmful in many different ways. Are you really advocating for incest marriage? But even if you are, it is not the same as marriage equality for gay couples. Marriage equality does not alter the rules for straight couples, while incest marriage alters the rules for everyone. And again, it does not deny the same fundamental right to the individual, it only places a reasonable restriction on choice of partner for everyone.

I also hope we can agree that harming others needlessly is immoral. Often harm is clear and indisputable. It appears you wish to justify harm based on what you consider a "moral" belief that allows ignoring harm.

Dan has given precise and detailed examples of "harm"...what more do you need, Donald? Go ahead and Google it, vs. all the examples of how you will be "harmed" if gay marriage becomes legal.

We know what prejudice does.
We know what discrimination does.
We know what parental disdain brought on by ignorance does.
We know what public disdain brought on by ignorance does.

What is it that gay marriage will do to you? It will stop you from being allowed to discriminate against customers in your business should you choose to do business with the public.

One is true harm, the other is not only a smart business practice but the human and moral thing to do...one could even say, "the Christian thing to do".

Susan. Important points. We know prejudice and discrimination cause harm, while no one has been able to demonstrate any harm caused by treating gay couples equally under the laws currently in effect. At best, we have negative consequences for not following equal public accommodations laws.

Perhaps a minor point because I suspect (not sure) most states that recognize marriage equality also have public accommodations laws that protect on the basis of sexual orientation, but marriage equality does not automatically require equal treatment in public accommodations. About half the states still don't have protections, meaning you can be fired from your job, kicked out of your housing, refused service at a restaurant, a photographer, and a room at the Inn.

But confusing and conflating the two areas of law is a tactic used to discredit marriage equality as forcing other changes, when the two laws are entirely separate and independent of each other. A married gay couple can be refused a room at the Inn if the state doesn't cover sexual orientation in their non-discrimination public accommodations laws.

Minor point perhaps, but a common tactic for avoiding the golden rule.

Still waiting for a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for harming same sex couple families through denial of equal treatment as required by the constitution.

Thank you, Dan. Yes, I did connect gay marriage with discrimination law. I guess that I have read it so often here in this forum that they have become synonymous...now I understand why.

There may not be a study or scientific connection yet, but it certainly can't be helpful when your state and country consider your love, relationship, and commitment as "less-than".

This subject has been hammered at length elsewhere: http://mendotaheights.patch.com/articles/minnesota-companies-that-oppose-the-marriage-amendment

Not all political decisions are correct. Governments are made up of people, and people make mistakes. Slavery was legal in this country, and affirmed by the US Supreme Court. That did not make it right.

Toleration is vital to civility. We will seldom agree on everything. When we disagree on something really important, we should not try to ram our ideas down other people's throats. Doing this by insisting on our own definitions of subjective terms like "harm" is no different.

The idea that SSM is a "fundamental right" is by no means universally accepted. This idea is at odds with every major religion. It is at odds with biology.

Those who insist on "marriage equality" are not fighting for equal rights. They are fighting for yet another protected class, and to give that class the power to compel people to defend their choices when offended. This is not a step forward - for anyone. What about the freedom of those who simply want to go about their business? Dan Johnson does not offer to forego that power. Rather he insists on his right to exercise it to "correct" me if I stray, to the applause of Susan and others.

The only possible explanation for those who cannot see this as a threat is willful blindness.

This is the harm in SSM.

Donald. My assertion is that marriage is a fundamental right, as affirmed on 14 occasions by the Supreme Court.

The remaining question is; can the government deny this fundamental right to gay people. So far the courts are saying no. Gay people are entitled to equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution. Denial of equality provides nothing to straight couples while harming gay couples needlessly.