1 - 8
Robert1824, if you're paying any attention you'll see that women are routinely rushed to ERs from the "safe legal" abortion mills now dotting the landscape. More to the point, there was a time not so long ago, in a land not at all far away, where sex was anticipated only within marriage, where fidelity and chastity were widely accepted norms, and society was healthier--far fewer broken families, fewer children born out of wedlock, more stable relationships, lower crime, lower poverty...because at the end of the day, a society grounded on stable natural families is a stable, just society. Imperfect, yes--people fell short, expectations weren't met. But I've lived in both societies, and I know which is healthier...
The out of control budget is certainly the issue of the day--my question is, how do you solve that problem "tomorrow." There are any number of immediate fiscal measures to take that may...may...avoid an untimely end, but the long term "tomorrow" solution for this issue of "the day" is to restore the natural family as the normative base for society. Stable, married parents with kids add to the tax base, have the lowest impact on government support services, and have a high probability of providing functional, productive future taxpayers. Other family structures do not perform nearly as well. Put simply, you can't balance the budget on a foundation of broken families--you need a mom and a dad and same-sex couples cannot provide both.
In response to:

Putting Faith Under House Arrest

mccgsm Wrote: Apr 27, 2012 3:28 PM
Actually, atheists complained in the Utah Highway Patrol Association case about memorial crosses erected to honor fallen police officers at or near the location of the officer's death, including several that were in private property. Those that were on private property they found offensive because the cross included the highway patrol badge--they saw that as state endorsement.
In response to:

Putting Faith Under House Arrest

mccgsm Wrote: Apr 27, 2012 3:24 PM
If One Colorado was "perfectly happy" with the existing constitutional protection, then they'd put their effort into opposing the Focus proposal. Instead, they are running with their own proposal that would eliminate the right of association for religious people, and create a state constitution that would permit less religious freedom than did the Soviet Union.... What One Colorado really did is simply tip the hand of what our President means when he substitutes his words--"Freedom of Worship"--for the constitutional "free exercise of religion." You can be faithful, you just can't let anyone know.... Gary M
In response to:

Putting Faith Under House Arrest

mccgsm Wrote: Apr 27, 2012 3:20 PM
Nonsense; religious freedom does not protect "purposeful bigotry;" it protects the free exercise of faith and conscience. The standards set forth in the Focus proposal very closely track the thinking of Madison and Jefferson. What startles me a bit is that so many "liberals" are so ready to use the force of law to regulate private conscience--so folks who argue the loudest for absolute personal autonomy are simultaneously invoking police state powers to suppress others' personal autonomy. Rather inconsistent, I think.....
In response to:

Putting Faith Under House Arrest

mccgsm Wrote: Apr 27, 2012 2:59 PM
Nonsense; what Focus proposed is an amendment very much in line with Federal protections and more importantly, the rights of conscience advocated by the founding fathers. This is an important right, but scarcely unheard of--after all, we've been letting people "opt out" of defending their homeland from evil aggressors for many, many decades. Would you be the one to send Pete Seeger to Vietnam, then? One Colorado independently decided to try and limit that by specifying that ONLY those acts within private homes and places of worship would be protected by the Colorado constitution. Their proposal is their proposal, and calling me a liar does not change what they said in black and white capital letters....
In response to:

Putting Faith Under House Arrest

mccgsm Wrote: Apr 27, 2012 2:51 PM
K'ssandra, homosexual behavior has been effectively decriminalized since the Lawrence decision--you can be as "open" as you want about your chosen behavior. But what your colleagues are seeking in Colorado is even more--to treat same-sex relationships as being indistinguishable from male/female marriage, and at the same time erase the religious viewpoint from public view. That, I submit, is not "fair." And by the way, my "antiquated" religious beliefs are what gave birth to the First Amendment that--ironically--protects your right to advocate for censoring faith.
In response to:

Dump Starbucks

mccgsm Wrote: Apr 16, 2012 9:10 PM
The reason that the law and society generally has supported and benefitted marriage is because of the unique procreative potential of a man and a woman. It is a rare marriage-related law that does not have a connection to that unique capacity. Same-sex couples cannot procreate, and when they do introduce a child to their relationship (by contracting for all or part of a human) then they intentionally deny the child either a mother or a father--and every child should have the right to his or her natural parents. It is no violation of "equal rights" to treat different things differently--and two guys or two girls together is very different than a man and a woman together.
1 - 8