As one who you would probably label as "religious right" (let's label 'em, and humiliate them - hell, it worked in 1930s Germany), I think you'll find your intolerance is missplaced. Generally, if you bothered to ask a devout Christian, you'd find that many of us have gay friends and loved ones, and are not set on condemning anyone. That's a lot more tolerance than you seem to be giving us.

So, you probably didn't know that I'm a pro-life Roman Catholic who votes for a lot more Republicans than Democrats, who supported Bush's wars (though not always his strategy or some of his antics here at home), that I would NOT want to see my priest perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, and that my objection to the gay marriage bans have to do with separation of church and state, and not with my own views on morality. See, you, too, are making assumptions.

All fives for sentiment, even if execution thereof isn't quite there. Some points are worth making.

Fair enough, but you don't state that in your parody. Taken at face value, it is implying that those who are religious and conservative are intolerant zealots. Glad you wrote to clarify your position. Incidently, as I understand it, the government isn't approaching this matter from a religious point of view, but as a matter of standing behind the legal and historical definition of what constitutes "marriage". Once our definitions are neutralized, basic law can be rendered null and void, as well as the foundation of our government, the Bill of Rights.

All I can say is, I try to attack both sides of the political divide so one side doesn't feel slighted. I'm the one who wrote "San Clinton," "Peace Freaks" and "I was pro-life when pro-life wasn't cool." And I'm also the one who wrote "P-A-T-R-I-O-T A-C-T" and "W Can't Stop Deceiving." As a Catholic I agree, morally, with your definition of marriage. But as a Libertarian I feel it takes more than a moral wrong to justify a law prohibiting it. There needs to be either the unjust use of harmful force (as in abortion), a violation of someone else's rights (which would include putting someone else in harm's way, as with DUI) or an attempt to defraud the other person. In other words, there cannot be a crime without a victim. For the government to ban a practice for moral reasons alone is to create the very kind of theocracy from which our national founders fought a revolution to free themselves. Good points, though, I don't want you to think there are any hard feelings on my end because there aren't. -- MM

Ditto, Michael.

David, If I may, I think your point is that you love the sinner and hate the sin? This would be on course with Christian teachings and doctrines. As for the legality of this matter, I'll leave that to the law makers and just hope they are wise enough to make the right choices for "we the people". If they don't then we have the power of the vote.