Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

(File Photo: Lynda Waddington/The Iowa Independent)
(File Photo: Lynda Waddington/The Iowa Independent)

Santorum Q&A: Marriage for gays threatens religious freedom

By Douglas Burns | 08.25.11 | 2:30 pm

Republican 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum sat down with Douglas Burns, co-publisher of The Carroll Daily Times Herald and an alum and frequent contributor to The Iowa Independent, to discuss Catholicism in relation to the GOP, rival Michele Bachmann and, of course, some of the social conservative issues well known to those who have seen Santorum on the Iowa stump.

Santorum, 53, was elected to the U.S. House in 1990 at age 32, and from 1995 to 2007, served in the Senate. In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference chairman. In 2006, he was defeated by Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr., son of a former Pennsylvania governor.

Burns: You’re in an historically Catholic community. It’s named after Charles Carroll, the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence. Why have we only had one Catholic president? You’re seeking to be the second. Is there still prejudice?

Santorum: That’s a good question. The Republican Party has never nominated a Catholic.

Burns: Why is that? And why should Catholics stand for that?

Rick Santorum (File Photo: Lynda Waddington/The Iowa Independent)

Santorum: Well, I’m doing my part to try to change that. I guess I would say that if you look back, the Republican Party, its roots were definitely within a region of the country where the people who were supporting Republicanism were Protestants, and if you go back to sort of the Know Nothings and things like that, anti-Catholics tended to migrate toward the Republican Party. The Blaine Amendment*, for example, was Republican. So there was some hostility certainly 100-plus years ago toward Catholics and that’s when the big Catholic immigration happened so they tended to migrate toward the Democrats.

So I think that’s probably the roots of it. But you’re asking me an historical question, and it’s not really an opinion. I’m sure there’s a factual basis for it.

But at least today I think what you’d see is that Catholics are pretty much all over the board. I mean, when I was growing up as a kid, pretty much everybody I knew that was Catholic was Democrat. That’s not the case anymore.

The question is whether you’re church-going or not.

If you’re a church-going Catholic by and large you’re a Republican, just like if you’re a church-going Protestant by and large you’re a Republican. And if you’re not church-going by and large you’re not.

So it breaks down more on orthodoxy than it does on anything else.

Burns: If your position on abortion prevails and abortion is prohibited, Senator, what should the penalty be for a woman who obtains an abortion or a doctor who performs one.

Santorum: I don’t think there should be criminal penalties for a woman who obtains an abortion. I see women in this case as a victim. I see the person who is performing the abortion as doing the illegal act, and as a result, I would support some penalties for the doctor, both professional and criminal.

Burns: Traditionally in Iowa, in the Iowa Republican caucuses and at the straw poll, abortion has been a prominent issue. In covering it myself, and of course following what my colleagues statewide and nationally have done, there really hasn’t been a lot of focus on that. Is that a hidden issue that could leapfrog you into a higher finish?

Santorum: I talk about all the issues, because I think people are concerned about all the issues. To get out there and just focus on the economy, you know, that’s part of it. Certainly you can see with Obamacare and the jobs program, I talk about that.
But we’re also a country that as I mentioned before is a moral enterprise. We’re concerned about the health of the family. We’re concerned about the health of a society that doesn’t respect all life. I mean, those are things in my mind that continue to be important and we’ll continue to talk about.

Burns: You talked about some of the other candidates in the Republican field. Does Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (the Minnesotan who won the Ames Republican straw poll this month) clear a basic competency threshold for commander in chief?

Santorum: Look with respect to judgments as to whether the candidates are qualified or not, I’ll leave that to the people of the caucuses to decide.

But I think you do need to look at experience.

You need to look at whether they’ve had the kind of experience that you would feel comfortable giving them this kind of authority.

We saw what happened when someone of limited experience like Barack Obama was elected president. He served four years in the United States Senate. Michele Bachmann served four years in the House.

I think it’s a legitimate question as to whether that is sufficient experience to be President of the United States.

But some might suggest that that’s good, that she hasn’t been involved in Washington politics for long, and that’s a good thing.

Some people say Herman Cain who has no experience and that’s a good thing.

It’s a judgment call on the part of people as to what they believe are the qualifications necessary to be a good leader, and whether they have the qualifications and experience is a judgment call.

I certainly put up the experience I have, and I think that’s an advantage for me.

But some might not think so. There are some who at least in this environment think having no experience turns out to be a positive.

Burns: You’ve been pretty strong in your opposition to gay marriage. Iowa, of course, does have legalized gay marriage. How does the fact that there are a handful of gay couples married in Carroll affect my heterosexual life and your heterosexual life? How does it hurt other people in Carroll, Iowa, that there are folks among us we may not even know who happen to be gay and happen to be married? How does that hurt my life?

Santorum: Because it changes the definition of an intrinsic element of society in a way that minimizes what that bond means to society.

Marriage is what marriage is. Marriage was around before government said what it was.

It’s like going out and saying, ‘That tree is a car.’ Well, the tree’s not a car. A tree’s a tree. Marriage is marriage.

You can say that tree is something other than it is. It can redefine it. But it doesn’t change the essential nature of what marriage is.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of the benefit of both the man and the woman, a natural unitive according to nature, unitive, that is for the purposes of having and rearing children and for the benefit of both the man and the woman involved in that relationship.

And for the benefit of society because we need to have stable families of men and woman bonded together to raise children. That’s what marriage is.

You can say two people who love each other is marriage. But then why limit it to just two people? Why not three people? Why not 10 people?

If it’s just about love and everybody needs to be treated equally, then why not 10? Why not allowing nieces and aunts to marry? Why not? If marriage means anyone who is in love, well, then, let everybody who is in love get married. But it’s not what marriage is.

Marriage has an intrinsic value to society, and when you cheapen it by saying anybody in any relationship is the same, it’s not. So you undermine the institution No. 1. No. 2, you’re gonna undermine religious liberty in this country. We’re seeing it already.

Anybody who does not recognize what the state says is good and right is a bigot. We don’t give licenses for adoptions to organizations that won’t do gay adoptions because they’re bigots. And a lot of those are faith-based organizations.

Will we go into pulpits and tell preachers they can’t preach that gay marriage is wrong? Well maybe not right away but maybe tax-exempt status is next.

There’s a conflict here because we’ve created something that is not what it is.

As a result of that it will have a huge impact on people’s religious freedom. You see it in every country that has adopted it already.
It will also have the impact of changing our educational structure. You’re seeing that already, too, where young children are being indoctrinated as to what normal is.

Now normal is what the law is.

So now we’re going to see all sorts of information provided to children against their parents’ will because the state says it’s so. It’s coercion as opposed to the collective morality of what the American public wants, and that’s what I’ve been fighting for.

(* = The Blaine Amendement is a failed Constitutional Amendment proposed in 1875 by Republican U.S. House Speaker James Blaine during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant that would have prohibited public money from flowing to private schools in any form.)

Comments

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/CRMOF34AMDNSN5CEBGJXD2OUGM Wayne

    ….strange, but heterosexuals have repeatedly redefined marriage, from purchasing pre-teen wives, from polygamous marriages, from property-less wives who could not inherit……ummm…..which of these is his “normal marriage”??

    • Anonymous

      It’s interesting to me how they keep focusing, not on love or respect or fidelity or commitment, but on gender and the importance of providing a stable two-gender parentage for offspring.  Because all those single parents?  Not good enough.  I assume they’ll be forcing those people into loveless marriages as their next act.  After all, on a financial level, they may benefit, and that’s all that matters to Santorum: marriage is only “a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of the benefit of both”, no need for love, attraction, fidelity, or any of those other silly human emotions! 

      Apparently, the only important factor in a human’s value as a parent or spouse is their junk.  Your genitalia define you in Santorum’s crazy head; you can’t possibly provide complementary child-rearing to someone of the same gender.  In fact, it’s somehow more detrimental to have two fathers or two mothers than to have only one.  So if you love your spouse, wish to raise children in a loving environment, and happen to both be the same gender, your love and commitment are invalid.  On the other hand, if you beat your spouse and brew meth in the kitchen, it’s fine, as long as one of you has a penis and the other has a vagina.  Because whatever else you do, that’s all that matters to God.

    • Anonymous

      “….property-less wives…”

      Actually, for most of that history, wives have BEEN property.

      I hope Mrs. Santorum understands what her husband is apparently promoting before she steps into a primary booth to vote for him.

    • Anonymous

      How Santorum’s wife doesn’t lose it on him, and ask him WHY???? Why is he Soooo OBSESSED with Gay Men -imparticular- and Gay sex…24/7…365 days a yr…I think Santorum has some Fantasies he just hasn’t dealth with.

  • David_in_Houston

    A tree isn’t a car? THAT’S his rational argument against marriage equality? I can make the same inane analogy to ban interracial marriage: “Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race. Throughout history, it’s always been that way. You can call interracial marriage a marriage. But that doesn’t make it one. I can call a donut a porterhouse steak, but it doesn’t make it one. Therefore, interracial marriage is wrong.”

    No doubt, Santorum has no problem with Rush Limbaugh’s FOURTH till-death-do-us part marriage; or how about Newt Gingrich’s two infidelities, and third marriage? I’m sure that’s okay too. Tiger Woods ring a bell? As long as you’re heterosexual, it’s all good. Right, Rick?

    • Anonymous

      Also: http://hooniverse.com/2010/07/06/just-a-bunch-of-flintstone-cars/

      Trees have clearly been cars since the emergence of the stone-age family unit.  In fact, it’s possible tree cars are needed for proper development of a child.  By disproving this statement of Santorum’s (following crazy Santorum logic), we must assume that he SUPPORTS gay marriage.  What?  Pop culture from today is every bit as valid as pop culture from 2000+ years ago.

  • Anonymous

    A tree is not a car… Wow, what insight! Here’s another insight into marriage, if you don’t want to marry a gay person, don’t, but you can’t say that our marriages are less than yours! If children were the end-all-be-all of what marriage is about, it would state in the marriage certificate when you planned on having children, as this seems to be the only prerequisite to this crack-pots definition of marriage. Get over yourself Ricky, you will never be president, hell, I don’t think you’ll ever be elected to anything besides Waste Manager. And I agree with rextrex1, what’s up with this supposed “straight” man’s infatuation with gay people and gay sex? For someone so grossed out by gay people, he sure spends a lot of time thinking, and talking about us… No, Rick, we have no interest in you! How about you tend to your little flock of in-breed children and leave the real worries of the world to the rest of us….

  • Anonymous

    Rick, why don’t you just hire a hustler and work through your gay fantasies. I am sure one of your GOP buddies can recommend someone. Really, shouldn’t a candidate for the presidency be concerned about things other than what people do in their bedrooms or how they organize their private lives?

  • Anonymous

    We recently married in Mass.  The marriage license is a legal contract nothing more/nothing less issued by the state, not the church.  When the idea of civil marriage came about, the state included the church as an “outsourcer” for performing the ceremony instead of clogging city hall with people.

    My opinion is they a right to their view of marriage, but they better darn well abolish divorce (another civil law invention, not recognized by the church).  I heard a recent survey shows the divorce rate still hovering around 50% and for those in the younger generation it skyrockets to 70%.

  • Anonymous

    Now we understand why the McCain campaign said of Rick Santorum:  “For pure, blind stupidity, nobody beats Santorum. In my 20 years in the Senate, I never met a dumber member.”   Santorum’s attempt to deny equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans on the logic that  “a tree is not a car” demonstrates why even other Republicans regard him as the bottom of the barrell. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1040963441 Paul Milburn

    So many of the comments below focus on the line about a tree not being a car.  I’ll grant that that particular line was kind of dumb.  But you all fail to say anything about this line:  ”You can say two people who love each other is marriage. But then why limit it to just two people? Why not three people? Why not 10 people?”  I agree.  So many Americans are against polygamists, myself included.  And yet, if they all love each other, why does it matter?  To be sure, that isn’t the case in all such families, but surely in some of them it is.  And yet people cry out against them and the government steps in and takes the children away.  Why?  Because we instinctively know that it isn’t natural.  It was not the original intention of marriage as designed by God .  And if you don’t believe that God created the world and such institutions as marriage, then why do you care so much about marriage in the first place?

    • Anonymous

      Oh, here we go again….so why not go the step further and say well if “I love my dog, why can’t we get married”?   That is just as stupid as your comment about polygamy.  Marriage is between two commited individuals who forsake all others.  If that happens to be two men, two women or a man and a woman it should not make a difference.  So get on topic and get real.  Your argument is ridiculous and old.

    • Anonymous

      “And if you don’t believe that God created the world and such institutions as marriage, then why do you care so much about marriage in the first place?”

      How does that even make sense?  i care about a lot of things; whether God created them or not isn’t a factor.  I also swat mosquitoes; whether God created them or not is not a factor.

      Validation by a deity is apparently important for you.  It’s not for me; even if I believed in the deity, I’d question its right to dispense judgement or its authority to determine my behaviors or priorities.   But if you don’t believe that God created homosexuals and such institutions as gay marriage, then why do you care so much about gay marriage in the first place?

    • Anonymous

      Soo, you’re saying if me and two other men all mutually love each other, it’s wrong. BUT, if Jane and John doe over here don’t love each other but still get married it’s all fine and dandy. 

      Well thanks for clearing that up for me.

    • Anonymous

      I think you and Santorum and a lot of Christians have a lot of nerve claiming you know what God thinks. If it’s against God’s will, then that’s something that St. Peter will address when the time comes. What gives you the right to pass judgement on other people in His name? The bible is written by man and therefore inherently flawed. It also says to stone adulteresses, but I don’t see any of you chucking rocks at anyone. Everything about the New Testament promotes loving and helping your fellow man, and to be American is to believe in the right to all freedoms. Your religion does not apply to everyone else in the country, nor should it. Your arrogance is a fine way to heaven; or did you forget that one of the seven deadly sins is Pride?

  • Anonymous

    People like Santorum threaten the very essence of being an American.  He is an embarassment to the whole country.  Ignorant, bigoted and a thug.  I fought beside gay men in the USMC during the first gulf war and I can tell you they fought with every bit as much courage as any Marine I served with over 20 years. I would serve with them ANY DAY over the coward Rick Santorum.  His sick campaign against gays is almost overkill.  Maybe he’s trying to cover up his latent homosexual tendencies.  Whatever his reason, he needs to STFU!  Just an FYI – here’s a website *a little dated, but it lists prominent Dems who SERVED and the Repukes who got daddy to get them a deferrment.  What a bunch of cowards and they have the nerve to condemn gays. 

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for serving…and thank you for providing a voice on this subject from the front lines, as it were.  We get plenty of pundits claiming DADT or an outright ban on gays in the military is the only way to preserve cohesion in the military.  But the men and women who have actually served knowingly with gay/lesbian soldiers in recent years seem not to have had a problem. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7DJNBT3DGFDJ4AL5PMDTF2MVEU ElizabethB

    Everyone must make their own choices. No one should make these choices for them. If they ask for advice it is not set in stone that they have to follow through. All else set aside, the Bible says it is a sin along with a dozen other things. Congress did not come up with these ideas and preachers did not write the laws. These laws have been in effect since Moses came down the mountain. Don’t blame man because he is a sinful creature and everyone has one or more kinds of sin.  No one is perfect. No one is being forced to believe or disbelieve.  It is all up to each individual.  If you believe in God then you will follow the Bible; if you do not believe in God then do your own thing. It reads that God created man & woman and told them to be fruitful and multiply.  How are you going to argue with that?  Let’s just burn all the bibles and the churches and be done with it.  Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion (at least for right now, who knows about later) and the right to be heard. Good luck to those who like  Santorum and to those who don’t like him. I personally am not fond of any of them, but again, that is my own personal opinion.

    • Anonymous

      You cannot rule a country with your religious belief. A country has more than one religion. It has Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindis, and Atheists. That’s why, older generations were smart enough to say that religion and politics/government must be separated. Is it fair to infuse your religious belief into an atheist or into a Hindi? You may not like it that two consenting adults marry, but be with it. We always remind ourselves about separation of Church and State.  

  • 4TimesAYear

    “Iowa, of course, does have legalized gay marriage”

    Mr. Burns, you have a poor understanding of lawmaking.  Declaring one law unconstitutional does not automatically make something else law – judges cannot legislate. After the courts judged Iowa’s law unconstitutional, Iowa’s legislature still needed to write a bill that allowed for gay marriage. However, that did not happen; Iowa still has no law on the books that allow gay marriage, and I would challenge you to show me one.

    • Anonymous

      By your reasoning, “Iowa, of course, does have legalized interracial marriage” would also be a false claim?

    • Anonymous

      Iowa has a civil right and licensure process for marriage.  Striking down DOMA means this right cannot be limited to heterosexual couples.  There doesn’t need to be a law specifically addressing gay marriage; homosexual couples are to be treated equally under the existing law.  Anything else would traipse into segregation…and we don’t do that here.

  • Anonymous

    Santorum’s comparison is simpleminded and wrong.  Right now if your
    heterosexual you are allowed to marry one person, if you are homosexual,
    in most states, you are only allowed to marry one person if you lie
    about who you are and pretend to be heterosexual.  It is not equal. A
    lot of unsuspecting women have had their lives turned upside-down from
    marring gay men who are trying to live the lie of the religious right.
    Would you want your daughter to marry a homosexual?  Everyone, being
    allowed to marry one other consenting person, is equal and promotes a
    stronger community and relationships for everyone, gay ans straight.

    Why not let three or more people marry?  First, no one is allowed the
    “marriage benefits” for more then one person at a time, the law is
    enforced equally.  Second and most important, poligamy is bad for
    society.  There is a balance of men and women in human societies.  For
    every man with ten wives, nine men need to go without.  Today in Mormon
    communities that practice polygamy, young men are regularly kicked out
    to limit the competition of the older men.  Polygamy hurts society.

  • http://www.facebook.com/thedrakester Drake Haley

    I
    am SOO confused, am I a tree? a paper towel? a car or a napkin? Mr.
    Santorum(giggle, such a frothy mess)…I am a man that happens to be gay and like other
    men….I guess you can theoretically call me a tree because I have set
    roots in my community…The car thing….is it because I drive one?
     

  • Anonymous

    Soon we will all answer to the Carpenter from Nazareth.  Jesus is who He said He was, and we will stand before Him alone in that Holy of Holies courtroom.  The ACLU won’t be invited in, nor will any special interest groups, Republicans, Dems, Tea Party folks, conservative or activist judges, etc…Your “opinions” and mine won’t matter.  Only truth will…and Jesus is indeed the way, TRUTH, and life…just as He said He was.  The manger led to the cross.  It’s historical reality.  Prepare for what comes next!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1734386120 Tyler Malone

    It already has a huge impact on peoples religious freedom. There are established faiths that are not so narrow minded to disallow same gender couples the blessing of marriage. As it stands now, not allowing a religious order to bless the legal marriage of a same gender couple IS restricting the church and it’s followers. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

  • Anonymous

    Well it is all very simple. Same sex attraction is just another burden to carry if one chooses to follow Christ and believes Christ is the Creator (God) become human. Sorta like not stealing if one is a kleptomaniac. Guess you’ll need to refrain from stealing.

    We either follow God’s path or we don’t. In Genesis it is clear that marriage is made for 1 man and 1 woman. The Theology of the Body explains it clearly.

    So, do your own thing and ignore obeying God or obey God and refrain from doing your own thing. A car is for driving but if I wanted to have it for dinner it would harm me. I would also hope that if I was crazy enough to start nibbling on a fender someone who knows it would harm me might try to stop me!

    Seems as if people have a tough time denying themselves. But again check out Genesis because that was the very problem from the beginning. 

    Our nation used to be morally and ethically Judeo-Christian. Today anything goes and morality is relative. It’s no surprise to me there is such confusion in the culture. If we all obeyed God’s traffic lights, we would not be having so many crashes into each other. The lights are all out of kilter from the original way they were programmed. 

    Sen. Santorum is a man of integrity and honor. Having more men like him around would do us all good. He is trying to revamp the traffic lights!

    Too many people just don’t get it. But not to fear because we all will be given consequences for the rebelliousness in the world. We will all pay because we are really all one big family and what we each do, good or bad, effects us all.

    Therefore, I am refraining from getting very, very angry at those of you who are so self centered. Because of your narcissism many people are being hurt.

    When its time to pay the piper. . don’t come to running to me!  Consider yourselves warned.

    • Anonymous

      Same sex marriage is nothing like kleptomania, in that it does no harm to anyone involved.  It is nothing like eating a car, in that it is not harmful to anyone involved.  Our nation is founded largely on the idea that all should be free to pursue their religion of choice, or not, as they wish.  

      Someone attempting to stop a same-sex relationship because they perceive it as harmful because of their religious convictions is violating the freedoms of that couple; it doesn’t matter if the interloper’s intentions are good, it’s still a violation of constitutional rights.  It doesn’t matter if your religion tells you to interfere; your religious freedoms end where someone else’s rights begin. 

      You’re right, if we all believed exactly as you dictate, we’d all behave just as you like.  But what gives you the right to decide this?  Why shouldn’t we all obey someone else?

      You call it narcissism.  But for the considerable number of people in this nation who have had their rights trampled or ignored, it’s called standing up for equal treatment under the laws of this nation.  It’s what the US is all about.  If you want to live in a theocracy….prepare to don a burkha.

  • Anonymous

    So if i’m fallowing what he says, saying “i love you” to anyone in my family means i’m in love with them? And if marriage isn’t about love than what’s the point? Why get married then and why raise kids in a home of “mutual convenience”? If I want to marry another man because I’m in love with him isn’t that a good thing, why should I be dubbed a lesser citizen? I mean if this is where we’re headed with the Catholics,  than hey why not just bring back slavery and rid us of women’s right’s while your at it?

     And not just the gays, what about all LGBT groups, does this mean that transsexuals and inter-sexed are given no right as to how THEY want to live? Anyone can look into the past and have plenty of examples why mixing your religion and politics doesn’t work AT ALL. 

    Sorry Santorum, but I’m going to continue living as the atheist, transexual-gay man I am. I’m going to live in the REAL WORLD and listen to scientists with facts to back things up. I’m going to get married some day and maybe adopt a child into my big gay home. 

  • Adrian Tremayne

    I am a minister. My church doesn’t discriminate against people of the same sex who wish to marry. By forbidding my church the legal right to civilly marry such couples as we see fit, while allowing that privilege to other churches and religions,  the First Amendment of the US Constitution is violated, as that virtually “establishes” those other religions and churches by using their RELIGIOUS definition of marriage as the civil, legal, definition.

    Marriage Equality is a “gay rights” and “LGBT rights” issue, but it is also a First Amendment civil rights issue for every religiously inclined American citizen. If one religion can be classed as “less than” another, or given preferential treatment, based purely on prejudice, all religions are in danger, and the rabid anti-marriage equality people should remember that while they are trying to take my civil religious rights away and outlaw aspects of my spiritual and religious beliefs.

Switch to our mobile site