As a moral conservative and a political conservative, I disagree with most of what is in this article.
I want the feds to stop funding all private groups, not just those the politicians do not like. The govt picking which group is worthy of our tax dollars is unconstitutional.
Why would anybody support an amendment which would force the govt's definition of marriage on all of us? That would be immoral.
If Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Michael Barone and others are right and Mitt Romney is our next president, we moral conservatives cannot take our foot off the gas. We cannot let up in our advocacy for life and family. We cannot relax or shift into neutral as if some great victory has already been won. To do so would be to make a fatal mistake, and four years from now we will be kicking ourselves again, vowing once more not to sell our souls to the Republican Party, claiming that this time we have learned our lesson, only to...
People peddle whatever sludge they think might work at any given time, but progress exposes them as small people, living in a crouch, trying to hold back as many others as possible.
The way to decide what genuine marriage is appears quite obvious; assuming you were a legitimate child. The union of a woman with a man under vows of matrimony. Like your Mummy and Daddy, wmou. All other "equality" is just a farce.
In fact, you insist on a right that wasn't given us. WE don't define real marriage, If we did, you could marry your fist; which after all has given you hours of pleasure.
Marriage is a vow, taken before God by spouses --one from each gender. We don't have the right to define other kinds of commitment as genuine marriage "for ourselves."
Then we do not have freedom of religion.