"You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." -- Rev. William J. H. Boetcker* * - This quote is often erroneously attributed to Abraham Lincoln

I do feel that gays should have equal government protections/benefits as marriage. However, I believe that this can be achieved WITHOUT changing the definition of marriage. The current desire to change the definition of the word “marriage” shows ignorance in the understanding of the biological nomenclature of the word. Two people of the same sex can’t “marry” for the same reason we can’t change the word “man” to mean “woman.” This ignorance continues to raise its ugly head as we erroneously assign new meanings to traditional and historical terms, thereby transporting "enlightened" meanings into our dictionary. Nothing in history, religion, anthropology or sociology justifies any added meaning to the word marriage. The word marriage...

A great video blog discussing the stupidity of allowing the mosque near ground zero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4&feature=player_embedded

I'm for Separate, but equal. I'd be fine with the state only recognizing Marriage as a type of civil union. It's the one between an man and a woman. The other kind would be a same sex civil union. Separate, but equal. Just like the state recognizes a man and a woman. Separate, but equal.

Separate, but equal. I'd be fine with the state recognizing Marriage as a type of civil union. It's the one between an man and a woman. The other kind would be a same sex civil union. Separate, but equal. Just like the state recognizes a man and a woman. Separate, but equal.

Separate but equl - I'd be fine with the state recognizing Marriage as a type of civil union. It's the one between an man and a woman. The other kind would be a same sex civil union. Separate but equal. Just like the state recognizes a man and a woman. Separate but equal.

I do feel that gays should have equal government protections/benefits as marriage. However, I believe that this can be achieved WITHOUT changing the definition of marriage. The current desire to change the definition of the word “marriage” shows ignorance in the understanding of the biological nomenclature of the word. Two people of the same sex can’t “marry” for the same reason we can’t change the word “man” to mean “woman.” This ignorance continues to raise its ugly head as we erroneously assign new meanings to traditional and historical terms, thereby transporting "enlightened" meanings into our dictionary. Nothing in history, religion, anthropology or sociology justifies any added meaning to the word marriage. The word marriage...

That works for me uber. It would be interesting to see if the gay rights community would actually accept something like this too.

I do feel that gays should have equal government protections/benefits as marriage. However, I believe that this can be achieved WITHOUT changing the legal definition of marriage. The current desire to change the definition of the word “marriage” shows ignorance in the understanding of the biological nomenclature of the word. Two people of the same sex can’t “marry” for the same reason we can’t change the word “man” to mean “woman.” This ignorance continues to raise its ugly head as we erroneously assign new meanings to traditional and historical terms, thereby transporting "enlightened" meanings into our dictionary. Nothing in history, religion, anthropology or sociology justifies any added meaning to the word marriage. The word...

Something tells me the intention of the "gay rights" movement to re-define the word marriage has less to do with equal rights and more to do with forcing other people to accept thier beliefs.