I've heard these jokes too, but in reality, I have to wonder if she knows anyone who is gay. In my experience, people can huff and puff all day long about how it is wrong and shouldn't be allowed, but once they come face to face with someone who is gay, and gets to know them, they have a really hard time explaining why they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

No joke, Susan, the man is a walking stereotype with his mannerisms and clearly in denial. Look at the list of outspoken homophobes who've been exposed. History suggests it's more than a strong possibility and he certainly fits the profile.

Getting back to your original question, I believe she has a sister who is a lesbian.

Thomas, could you please share where I made fun of anyone? I made a few accurate statements and your inference speaks only to your biases.

I wonder how attacking Susan supports your position . . .

Thomas, who is forcing you to read my two cents? Sorry, I guess I didn't realize I was limited in the number of comments I could make.

Rachel, I don't believe God should be removed from anyone's personal belief system, but I do believe God and religion need to stay our of government.

Coo-Coo 4 Co-Co Puffs

Susan, How can one have God in their personal belief system yet support a government that doesn't respect Christianity and its values? Even beyond the gay marriage topic. In electing a leader that is not in support of common christian values (and the majority are christian people) why would we let our government stand for everything against our personal beliefs - that sounds contradictory to me.

Rachel, there are quite a few religious groups that support same sex marriage - our Constitution forbids the government from favoring any one particular religion, just as it prevents any religion from dictating our secular laws. Again, this is an issue of civil marriage - no church could or would be forced to perform or recognize same sex marriages if the church leaders don't want to.

Rachel, I support a government that lets the individual choose what his or her religious beliefs are, not the government. So do you believe that an atheist can not have good morals or can not believe in treating others equally and with respect?

Perfectly put, Joyce! There are over 1000 laws favoring married persons, denying a class of people from the benefit of those laws is discrimination. Period.

So-either our government leaders should repeal all the laws that favor married persons -or - allow the union of consenting adults, irrespective of his/her sexual orientation. This eliminates the bias/discrimination and let's every religion determine it's marital preferences.

Joyce,

Your comments raise another subject. You rightly state that currently civil marriage is between two adults who are not already close relatives. If civil unions (I don't like the term "gay marriage" since the traditional definition of marriage is between those of the opposite sex) between consenting homosexual adults becomes legal, will brothers be able to unite with brothers and sisters with sisters? First cousins? Fathers and sons? It would seem logical to allow that since the reason closely related heterosexual couples are prevented from marrying is because of the potential for congenital issues that would not be present in the above stated cases.

Markus, you bring up that old "slippery slope" argument about brother marrying brother and so on. In point of fact, that is irrelevant; the current definition of civil marriage is a contract between two consenting adults who are not already close relatives because MARRIAGE CREATES A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. Brothers, sisters, parents and children are already closely related, so they do not need to create a family relationship.
As for first cousins, they are, in fact, allowed to marry in some states:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx

Cousin marriage is legal in the District of Columbia and Virginia. Hmmm.... I wonder if there's a connection?

I'm afraid if you're using the Bible to determine judgement you will have to expand the list beyond homosexuals. In our natural unrepentant state it doesn't bode well for anyone.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revelation 21:8 (NASB)

8 But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

And let's not forget Hebrews:
12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Don't forget this excerpt from a now famous letter:
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Law and how to follow them.

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

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 offence.

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

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

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.

Continued:

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. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Bob K wrote this:
Bob K
10:27 am on Thursday, May 10, 2012

According to God (speaking through the Bible), mere denial of civil rights isn't going far enough for these obvious non-Christians. God says they should be killed.

Bob, this is despicable. using Bible verses to slam other peaceable people is disgusting.

Ever heard the admonition to take the PLANK out of your own eye, before you try to remove the SPECK from your brother's eye.

Take it to heart, pal, take it to heart. God wants you to do that.

Hi Lewis,
I deleted your comment about Susan because it violated the first bullet of the user agreement. http://stillwater.patch.com/terms

Thanks Greg. I forgot the quote marks on the above comments. It was an open letter to Dr Laura, after she made comments about homosexuality being an abomination as stated in the bible. The point of the letter was that if you wish to claim gays should not be allowed to marry, because of religious (the bible, the word of God) reasons, you need to take a look at all the laws of God that are no longer recognized....why are we required to live by some rules, yet ignore others?

Greg, what did Jesus say about homosexuality? It seems to me that you are picking and choosing among the rules in the Hebrew Scriptures based on your own particular prejudices.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc2.htm

Greg, I didn't realize there was a how-to manual on interpreting the Bible. So do these Old Testament laws that are "impossible to follow" include the Ten Commandments?

Without going into a long theological discussion, there is a distinction between moral, civil and ceremonial Mosaic law. Jesus said He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill the Law. Jesus came to do what the Law was incapable of doing.

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

Romans 8: 3,4
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There can be no argument the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual behavior. Joyce, your link is a weak and ridiculous "interpretation". The larger argument is the Bible condemns many behaviors including fornication, adultery, lying, drunkenness, stealing, coveting, worshiping false gods, and the list goes on and on. Why the focus on just one behavior? Jesus was interested in changing peoples hearts, not their behavior. Change the heart and the behavior follows.

The self-appointed moralists refuse to acknowledge that our form of government is essentially neutral on religious matters. Basically, do what you want, just don't hurt anybody. They also evidently don't realize you can't legislate behavior. If you could, no one would be smoking pot, stealing or secretly wishing they had their neighbor's wife and car.

Markus, people tread on shaky ground when trying to justify basing civil law on biblical law. Leaving aside the First Amendment separation of church and state which strictly forbids the government from endorsing any religion (and, since different denominations interpret biblical law differently, how should the government choose among those denominations) the New Testament is filled with ambiguities and contradictions; the four gospels even disagree on the details of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. As a result, both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament have often been used to justify opposing views by picking and choosing among the contradictory and ambiguous passages; slavery, for example, was both defended and excoriated using quotations from the Bible. Today, different denominations within both Judaism and Christianity defend opposing positions on same sex marriage using biblical quotations.
The fact remains: civil marriage is at issue here; churches, synagogues, mosques and temples will be free to discriminate if they choose to once same sex civil marriages are legalized. Religious arguments should have NO place in this discussion.

"Religious arguments should have NO place in this discussion." I agree. The point I was attempting to make in my previous comments was to highlight the apparent oversight of those who wish to invoke Biblical mandates but only concerning one type of sinful behavior.

I don't concur with your analysis about the gospels disagreeing. I'm not sure where you come up with that, but I'll leave that to another discussion since I'm fairly sure I will not convince you otherwise.

We have a secular form of government that promotes religious freedom. It is a basic fundamental right. Issues such as marriage were purposely constitutionally left to the individual states to deal with. The people are by and large religious and that does have an effect on how they view society and what they determine the definition of marriage to be. If the majority of folks in Minnesota prefer to define marriage as between a man and a woman then that is their prerogative. They are free to discriminate as well. We'll see what happens in November.

Markus wrote: "I don't concur with your analysis about the gospels disagreeing. I'm not sure where you come up with that..."
I "come up with that" from actually reading and comparing the four gospels. Try it sometime.
As for the people of Minnesota being free to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, actually, no, they are not. There is, in the Constitution of the United States, a Supremacy Clause (Article VI) which states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."
States are free to make their own laws, but only up to a point; those state laws cannot contravene constitutional requirements. There will certainly come a time when discrimination against same sex couples comes before the Supreme Court as a violation of both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) and when SCOTUS finds such discrimination unconstitutional, all state laws and constitutions codifying discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be void. If that were not the case, then Jim Crow would still be allowed in southern states.

I would add, Markus, that at one time many states outlawed interracial marriage; Loving v. Virginia overturned all those state definitions of marriage.

Joyce,

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

We could argue about Biblical accuracy forever, so nuff said about that.

Regarding the 14th amendment, that has probably been more "interpreted" and abused than any other. It is clear that all of the civil war amendments pertained to race however equal protection under the law is a clear mandate. The problem with your argument is that the law regarding marriage currently applies equally. No one is denied the opportunity to marry. You simply have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Your argument has been tried regarding the progressive income tax. The law discriminates against high income earners, but it is not unconstitutional (at least as far as the court is concerned, I might argue differently). The law discriminates in many cases, but if the law is applied equally the courts have determined them to be constitutional.

I won't argue that this won't appear before the Supreme Court. However a constructionist view of the 1st or 14th amendment would uphold a state amendment regarding the definition of marriage. How is the court going to prove the citizenry is biased religiously?

Markus, before Loving, everyone had "equal protection" under the law as well - everyone was allowed to marry someone of the same race. In fact, just as some people did not enjoy equal protection before Loving, not everyone has equal protection regarding marriage now, since gays and lesbians are not currently allowed to marry the consenting, unrelated adult of their choice while straight people have that right.
Moreover, since you keep bringing religion into the equation, which particular denomination should have its particular interpretation of the Bible codified in Minnesota's secular Constitution? The Episcopal Church, ELCA and the Twin Cities Jewish Congregations have come out in support of same sex marriage - why do you think our Constitution should discriminate against those religions?

I'd just as soon leave religion out of the discussion. I'm only commenting on it because it was brought up in this thread.

I like a secular government with limited enumerated powers that allow me to exercise my religion freely and not impose it's idea of religion or morality on me.

I'm arguing that people can and do discriminate for a myriad of reasons and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm a huge advocate of natural law and a fan of Lockean philosophy.

Individuals should be able to discriminate and associate with whom they wish. If I own a restaurant and don't wish to serve a person of another race or sexual orientation, that should be my prerogative. It might make me a fool or a bigot, but I have the right nonetheless. I do not have a monopoly on restaurants and the person of another race is free to choose a restaurant that will serve him. The market will take care of that.

The government on the other hand should not be able to discriminate based on race or sexual preference because it is a monopoly and the person has no other choice. That is why we have the 14th amendment. (The Civil Rights Act was really about preventing institutional racism, not regulating lunch counters that were owned by idiots but I digress.) However, marriage for all of recorded history has been between a man and a woman. Most people have a problem with changing the definition.

continued...

I have argued in previous posts that people should be able to associate with whom they choose and if that's a homosexual partner, so be it. It doesn't mean I have to like it or even tolerate it. And that's the point I'm trying to make. The people should have the right to determine what marriage is, not a few people in black robes.

If you want to call them civil unions, OK. Again it comes down to freedom of association. But to confer all the privileges of traditional marriage when the people are against it seems kind of odd to me. The old adage of "follow the money" is most likely the real culprit behind the same-sex "marriage" lobby. Those domestic partners really want the law to favor them so they are entitled to more goodies from their employers, in many cases government. Employers offered family benefits originally to be able to pay more in a time of wage controls in order to attract employees. Now it has become expected, even demanded, particularly when it comes to the public sector. If those benefits were removed, I wonder if there would be such a commotion regarding this issue.

Markus is, apparently, a Libertarian: 'Individuals should be able to discriminate and associate with whom they wish. If I own a restaurant and don't wish to serve a person of another race or sexual orientation, that should be my prerogative.'
You do, in fact, have the right to associate with whom you wish and religious organizations have the right to restrict membership and association, but a restaurant serves the general public and is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. It is very sad that you find that an imposition.
As for your claim that "marriage for all of recorded history has been between a man and a woman," please tell me, how many wives did King Solomon have? The definition of marriage has changed a lot; at one time, women were the possessions of their husbands, purchased from their fathers, not the equal partners of their husbands as understood by most people in the developed world. When I was a child, married women were not allowed to have credit in their own names, and when I was in high school some states defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman of the same race.
As for your contention that same sex couples want marriage only for the monetary benefits. Clearly, you have never gotten to know same sex couples, who want to marry for the same reasons heterosexual couples want to marry...(continued)

...that is, same sex couples see marriage as the "gold standard" for love and commitment, they marry because they want stability and security for their loved ones, including their children, and because they want to declare their love and commitment to each other formally in front of friends and family. In other words, same sex couples want to marry for the very same reasons opposite sex couples want to marry. Of course monetary issues enter into it, just as those same issues are taken into consideration by heterosexual couples.
Frankly, our society benefits from promoting stable relationships; allowing same sex couples to marry provides the same benefits to society that heterosexual marriage provides, therefore it is actually in the interest of the state to permit same sex couples to marry.
As for your statement: "I like a secular government with limited enumerated powers that allow me to exercise my religion freely and not impose it's idea of religion or morality on me"; if you truly believed that, you would oppose the marriage amendment, which imposes as narrow religious definition of morality on everyone.

"It is very sad that you find that an imposition."

I personally don't find it an imposition. I was simply trying to illustrate my point. I have a business that serves the general public and the only color I care about is green. My clientele is as diverse as the population and I'd be a complete fool to discriminate on the basis of race. I'm only speaking to the broader idea of freedom to associate. As a business owner (an individual), why should I not be free to associate with whom I choose?

Back to the topic at hand. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In case you missed it, the point I'm trying to make is whether you don't like it or you think it's unfair, the people have the right to decide what marriage is. Did you see what happened to the Supreme Court justices in IA who arbitrarily decided homosexual "marriage" is a right? The people ousted them for their judicial activism.

Frankly, I have some reservations about making this a constitutional amendment. I think I'd rather see it acted upon legislatively. Even if this amendment passes, particularly if it passes with a slim majority, it still doesn't pass the "consensus" test IMHO. However, I still don't believe anyone's individual rights are being infringed upon were it to pass.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And yet, Loving v. Virginia overturned state laws that violated the US Constitution; the people and the states have rights, but making laws that violate the Constitution of the United States is not one of those rights. While we are on that subject, contrary to what you say, judges do not make laws, the legislature makes laws. Judges, however, are tasked with determining the constitutionality of laws that are challenged by the people - laws made by some of the people may be challenged by other people - and, in the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void." The main purpose of the marriage amendment is to prevent a court, in the future, from determining that Minnesota laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the state Constitution; that state Constitution, however, is subordinate to the US Constitution, which is why the SCOTUS decision overturned the laws of the sovereign state of Virginia.
You speak often about your freedom; how would your freedom be restricted if the civil contract known as marriage is opened up to same sex couples? In what way would that limit your freedom or, indeed, have any effect on your life?
More...

Markus wrote: "I still don't believe anyone's individual rights are being infringed upon were it [the marriage amendment] to pass." Really? It would restrict the right of same sex couples to enter into the civil contract known as marriage. It would restrict the rights of religious communities that approve of same sex marriage to perform same sex marriages. What that amendment does is impose the religious dogma of some on others who do not believe in that dogma...and you don't find that restrictive of individual rights? Seriously?

Joyce,

You still don't understand. I'm not even advocating for or against the amendment. I'm advocating for the people's right to make it. I have argued everyone should be able to associate freely, but that does not necessarily mean they have a right to be "married" particularly since the law already precludes them from doing so and has for a long time.

Many believe homosexuality to be unnatural and consider particularly the act of male homosexual sex an unhealthy behavior. We all know the incidence of aids is many times higher among homosexual men than the general population. I know a doctor who has treated many men in the ER that had severe damage to the posterior region after participating in the act. Particularly young men and even boys. Not accepting it as normal is not necessarily a religious concept.

For all intents and purposes the courts make law because they override the will of the people. Sometimes maybe rightly, usually not. Because of judicial review the judiciary has essentially become another arm of the legislature particularly when it comes to 10th amendment issues. Roe vs Wade is a classic example of judicial activism. Somehow reading the right to privacy into the constitution, then deciding the states have no jurisdiction regarding restricting abortion is as close to making law as you can get.

"a law repugnant to the Constitution is void" How can you quote that with a straight face and say Obamacare is good law?

Bob K wrote this:
Bob K
9:55 am on Friday, May 11, 2012

Greg, I didn't realize there was a how-to manual on interpreting the Bible. So do these Old Testament laws that are "impossible to follow" include the Ten Commandments?
____________________________
Bob, if you don't think the Bible needs to be taken in its correct context, and is always subject to interpretation, then you will always and forever MISinterpret the Bible, and never learn anything from it.

Your view shows an extreme ignorance of religion, and the Bible.

"You say the judiciary, in pronouncing a law unconstitutional, violates the will of the people. It does so rightly - basic civil rights, as outlined in the Constitution of the United States, are not meant to be put to popular vote."

I said "for all intents and purposes the courts make law because they override the will of the people." and "the judiciary has essentially become another arm of the legislature". FDR threatened to "pack the court" if the legislature didn't go along with his New Deal initiatives. Since then the left and the right have sought to essentially pack the court with like minded individuals who would "interpret" the constitution in their favor. Hamilton said "the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power" and "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers". If Hamilton were alive today he would likely consider the judiciary branch too political and the executive branch too powerful. Rather than being checks on each other, the branches are in cahoots with one another.

You implied that the people preventing gays from marrying would violate the first amendment on religious grounds. My remarks were meant to illustrate that there are more than religious reasons for opposing gay marriage.

Continued….

All that being said, after thinking this through, I will concede some of your points as being legitimate in our secular republican form of government, particularly this:
"The Constitution, by its very nature, protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority." That is absolutely true, however keep in mind the individual is the smallest minority and ultimately should be protected from the majority when it comes to basic rights. The framers understood our basic rights to be inherent and not subject to the whims of the majority.

Ron Paul probably articulates the libertarian’s position better than anyone in his book “Liberty Defined”.
"I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment Issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired.

The supercharged emotions are on both extremes of the issue, because neither extreme accepts the principles of a free society. One side [anti-gay marriage] is all too willing to have the state use the law to force a narrow definition of marriage on everyone...The other side-a minority opinion-wants the law to help them gain social acceptance even though this is impossible for law to achieve. Those who seek social acceptance of gay marriage are also motivated by the desire to force government and private entities to provide spousal benefits.”

more...

This would require the government get out of the marriage business and leave it to the individual parties to determine what type of association they wish to have and contract as such. This could also reform divorce law as parties could determine ahead of time contractually what happens when one party breaks the contract and the courts could enforce the contracts. Why would this not be an acceptable way for both sides to get what they want?

Markus, you talk a lot about the rights of the individual. Has it never occurred to you that every group seeking equal rights is made up entirely of individuals? When you deny homosexuals the right the marry the unrelated consenting adult of their choice, you are denying each and every INDIVIDUAL within that group the basic civil right of marriage.
As for Ron Paul's suggestion that each couple draw up its own contract - what a bonanza for the legal profession! How many people have the funds to pay a lawyer $300+/hour to draw up such an elaborate contract? Paul would exclude everyone but the wealthy from marriage. Moreover, since the state has an interest in promoting stable families and in protecting children, there would have to be certain state mandated minimum requirements for said contracts; why not leave civil marriage as it is and simply allow same sex couples to sign on? Allowing same sex couples to marry would not change the definition of civil marriage one whit - it would remain a legally binding contract between two unrelated consenting adults.

As for social acceptance, we don't have thought police in this country, we cannot force people to change their prejudices. We can, however, enforce actions such as discrimination; there are no longer separate drinking fountains for people of different races, and help-wanted ads no longer can say, "Jews need not apply." You don't have to like it, you just can't act on your prejudices.

Joyce,

You're a skilled debater. We could go on forever but frankly you're wearing me down. I will concede you have some valid arguments, some I obviously take issue with. For me to be consistent, I would at least reluctantly have to agree with some of your points particularly regarding equal protection and the individual pursuit of happiness. Obviously we have different worldviews, but that's what makes it interesting, right?

Regarding the marriage amendment, it will have to run it's course. I doubt we'll know the ultimate outcome of it for years. It would be highly unlikely there will not be a court challenge if it passes. To be honest, I struggle with it. Balancing my Biblical convictions with my libertarian views regarding government is a challenge at times. I love Ayn Rand's political philosophy but I struggle with the fact she was an avowed atheist. The framers evidently wrestled with those ideas as well, but the First Amendment really solves the dilemma.

"How many people have the funds to pay a lawyer $300+/hour?" Many more if we didn't have a new Vikings stadium.

"we don't have thought police in this country,". Yet. We do punish crime differently based on thought however so maybe even that is arguable.

Excellent. Fantastic.

Crimes of intent and crimes of passion have precedents of being prosecuted differently. To prosecute someone differently because of their attitude while they were committing the crime seems ludicrous. First degree murder is the same whether you had a racial prejudice or not while acting on your intention.

Regarding Ayn Rand's philosophy equating rational self interest to "each man for himself" is a little bit of a stretch. She postulated that a person had no real value to themselves or anyone else without first having a rational self interest. As to her being a dreadful writer, I suppose the premise of "Atlas Shrugged" wouldn't appeal to someone who advocates for social justice.

As to your reference to "General Welfare", Madison addressed the abuse of that clause in Federalist #41.

"No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it"

His point being if the general welfare clause authorized the congress to do anything it wanted, why enumerate the other 17 powers? A republican form of government is based on the idea that we are a nation of laws respecting basic individual rights not subject to the whims of the majority. Not some form of collective altruism.

The problem with her argument is that she implies every social institution must be ordained by government and that taxes are inherently good.

"Consider our need for education from kindergarten through universities, a stable monetary system, laws that protect property, courts to adjudicate disputes, rules to provide an even playing field in markets, hospitals, roads, airports, bridges, defense from predators whether criminal or military, development costs for technological innovations such as the Internet and modern medicines, libraries, parks and clean beaches."

Some of these are no doubt legitimate government functions, however those can generally be accomplished at the local governmental level and many of those listed with voluntary associations and cooperation. If you want to make a distinction between local governments vs. central government as being more "voluntary" associations, I might concede that, but having a massive central government dictate everything from education to road building to the delivery of health care is anathema to those who value freedom.

Not all government is bad and libertarians and Rand acknowledge(d) that. Locke advocated life, liberty and estate based on the natural law that those rights are inherent. Legitimate government should recognize those rights and protect the individual against force or fraud from those who would violate those rights.

Markus, the author does not claim that EVERY social institution MUST be ordained by the government - you are reading more into it than is actually there. But, in a republican form of government, the government and the citizens are not truly separable, since we are represented by the government, and those representatives are answerable to their actions at election time - ideally, anyway. Corruption, influence peddling, bribery, vote buying, of course, all take place, especially when there is a huge income disparity and decisions like Citizens United allow the super wealthy to exert an enormous influence on elections.
I would agree that some things are best left to local government - education is a case in point, though state-wide standards are helpful in maintaining quality across districts. Moreover, while some states have state-wide funding for schools, others rely exclusively on real-estate taxes, which results in a huge disparity in the quality of schools in wealthy as opposed to lower-income areas.
There are some areas, however, where the federal government MUST play a strong role, notably civil rights; if that were left up to the states, we'd still have bans on interracial marriage and school segregation in some states.

Kris, I was in high school and college during the civil rights movement of the '60s, so I remember it well; people who opposed equal rights for African Americans back then probably still do so, the only difference being they now have to use "coded" language to express their bigotry. Think, for example, of the gun targets recently sold which were shaped like a young man in a hoodie holding skittles and a bottle of iced tea - racist? Absolutely.
Looking at demographics, we can predict that same sex marriage will be as accepted in 50 years as interracial marriage is now, that is, the bigots will still oppose it, but they will no longer be able to do so openly, and their numbers will dwindle as the older generations die. For those who oppose same sex marriage for reasons other than bigotry (fear of what it will do to "traditional" marriages, for example) time will show them that same sex marriage, far from having a deleterious effect on the institution, will in all likelihood strengthen marriage. Familiarity does not breed contempt, it creates understanding and acceptance.

How in the world would a gay couple's marriage affect my marriage? This is the worst excuse I have heard so far from the naysayers. Their real issues are usually with something like what Joyce and Markus pointed out before...some people find it icky. Well, if you find it icky, then YOU shouldn't do it.

I heard a statistic yesterday: There are currently 1,100 federal laws that favor a married couple, and not necessarily civil unions. Because of these laws, I say it is a federal civil rights issue.

Let the churches say no, let those with religion convictions say it's not for them, but the government should say yes, and give every law abiding, consenting adult the same rights.

I once heard someone say that if same sex marriages should be banned because people find gay sex "icky," then our parents' marriages should also be banned for the same reason.

Funny....but of-course no one will admit that is why they oppose gay marriage. As Kris, you, and I have all pointed out here, the same arguments were used for interracial marriage. It's sad that we have to wait for a generation to die off for this to be accepted.