In response to:

Usher In A Redefinition of Marriage, Usher Out Religious Liberty

David3036 Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 12:41 AM
Here we have yet another columnist who perpetuates the notion that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty. Advocates for same-sex marriage have not "downplayed the impact of such laws on some people’s religious beliefs." The religious groups have EXAGGERATED the impact. Catholic Charities did not have to give up adoption services -- it just had to stop doing it with PUBLIC MONEY. When you do things with public money, you can't discriminate. And the fact that they simply picked up their marbles and went out of business tells me that they NEVER WERE devoted to the families and children they served. And the New York clerks did exactly what they SHOULD do if they can't serve all of the public -- RESIGN from serving the public.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 7:43 AM
As usual, David spouts his falsehoods.

Adoption agencies must be LICENCED by the state, so the state can mandate points of compliance. No, David. Catholic Charities was NOT free to operate as they wished without public funding.

The Author gave numerous examples and quotes from high level operatives that religious liberty would be affected; points that you completely glossed over and ignored.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 9:10 AM
You didn't address the other point that was made about public money. By law, public money cannot discriminate. That's how it works in areas such as public housing, which is perfectly reasonable and constitutional. But private housing can cater to certain groups. So what law prohibits Catholic Charities from operating freely without public funding? Could you please cite a law or regulation that I can research?
David3036 Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 12:49 AM
Pulbic schools should NEVER be influenced to mold their curricula to anybody's religious beliefs. Can you imagine what it would be like if every religion and every denomination wanted its views taught in the schools? Those who feel strongly that their kids should not be exposed to public-school instruction need to send their kids to parochial schools.

Redefining marriage law does not mean redefining any church's marriage laws or customs. That is guaranteed in the Constitution. If our federal and state laws did not recognize and reward married couples in a thousand ways, we would not be having these discussions, but they do. And it is patently unfair to deny those benefits to my gay friends who have been together for 40 years and...
David3036 Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 12:50 AM
...grant them to Britney Spears' 55-hour husband.
ZealousConscript Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 1:13 AM
I could have not said it better.

NOTE: This is the fourth column in a series of columns related to National Marriage Week, Feb. 7-14, 2013. The third column is available here.

Disagreements and projections abound in the dialogue about marriage and its redefinition to include same-sex couples. But both sides agree on one issue: redefining marriage significantly jeopardizes religious freedom—the first liberty upon which our nation was founded.

The convergence of several factors creates this unavoidable clash between religious liberty and redefining marriage. First, the vast majority of religious adherents in America believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And because...