I wish conservatives would realize that separation of church and state would PROTECT religious institutions from performing “same-sex” marriage.

Oh, and the concept of rights apply to everybody – not just those in the “majority.”

And logic in a religious institution? Please, don’t make me laugh. I feel sorry for your children if you plan on raising them with such ignorance.

If you believed in logic and rationality, you would provide some credible EVIDENCE to your insane accusations against gays and lesbians.

Plus, the definition of marriage has changed NUMEROUS times throughout the years. At one point, marriage meant a woman being owned by a man. A man once had the marital right to beat and rape his wife. Women were sold off by their fathers in ancient Germany. Marriage meant money in those times.

The concept of marrying for love is a new concept. Are you opposed to that? It was an effect of the Enlightenment, by the way. In late 17th century Virginia, Protestant ministers warned against married couples who loved each other too much. They were even against pet names.

It might shock you to know that it was Martin Luther – yes, Martin Luther – who made marriage a secular institution. It was the PURITANS who brought the concept of marriage as a secular institution to the United States.

African-Americans were not allowed to marry until after the Civil War. Interracial marriage wasn’t allowed until the Supreme Court ruled so, in the 1960s.

So, are you opposed to all these changes? Or do you prefer to be ignorant about history? Pick up a book by Stephanie Coontz (she covers all of the topic above, btw) and make an attempt to educate yourself.

PS – It was legal to form a homosexual union in medieval France.

You know, interracial marriage was against the law in many states until 1967. At the time that the Supreme Court ended all bans on interracial marriage in 1967, public opinion polls showed that a majority of Americans favored such bans. But as our founders noted, the majority is sometimes wrong. Many conservatives such as Mike K seem to favor a tyranny of the majority on the same sex marriage issue.

Civil unions are not sufficient, since such unions are not transferable from state to state and also do no include many of the rights and privileges of marriage. Besides, the days of “separate but equal” should be long gone. No one is trying to “force” anything on the Catholic Church. I would be the first to defend any Church’s right to perform or not perform any type of ritual – including marriage rites. But that’s not the issue. We are talking here about government-issued marriage licenses that confer hundreds of legal and economic benefits on couples. To deny such couples those rights and privileges simply because of their gender or sexual orientation is discrimination pure and simple.

It is hardly a cliche about Coleman. He makes claims which are contrary to the scientific evidence and lacks credentials in the field. A weatherman is hardly an expert on climate change and citing him just plays on the ignorance of the general population with regards to these distinctions.

For the rest, I believe that fundamentalist Christians are in defensive mode and the angry left knows this but will not acknowledge it. Rational observation is in the eye of the beholder. Regards,

In contrast, liberal Christians such as Obama and Al Gore are influenced to some extent by their religious beliefs, but do not attempt to dictate public policy based solely on those beliefs. They are not exclusionary in their politics – just the opposite, since they strive to achieve consensus. Yes, they often take strong positions on public policy issues, but those stands are informed first and foremost by rational observation and research, not merely theological dogma.

I hope you are right and the scientific consensus on global warming is wrong, or at least exaggerated. However I note to great a tendency among conservatives to accept any criticism of the science, regardless of how week, in order to support their desires.

I’m not very impressed by the site you link to. Scientific issues are best resolved in peer reviewed journals, not on web sites which have a political agenda. Using such sites as a source is far more analogous to following a religion than respecting the scientific consensus is.