There is no movement in the United States to kill people in the name of second amendment rights but there is a movement that has murdered 1,200,000 children in the name of women's rights

I agree marriage is a legal issue and I agree DOMA violates the Constitution. That being the case, why should the government be able to force the church to marry people they don't want to marry?

It doesn't matter how this nation was supposedly founded. The realities of today are different than then and the issue of personal freedom must be honored.

I have to ask though why is it that the church thinks it has a right to influence the laws to be conducive to what they want?

We speak of freedom of religion but when is a persons right to be free from the influence of religion.

To me this being a free nation everyone should be free to do as the wish as long as they aren't harming anyone else.

Religious and moral concerns are a personal issue. No one should have the right or ability to bring their choices down on someone else.

A person doesn't have to agree or support what someone else chooses to do with their life. As long as they conduct their lives in a lawful manner I dont see why such a fuss is being raised over this issue of marriage equality.

To me any law that reaffirms a religious position on marriage is in violation of the Constitution and the separation of church and state.

Marriage is a legal issue that's why a boat captain or justice of the peace can perform them. The church position is a moral issue see the difference?

The views held on marriage equality and abortion are the official views of the Church. The don't expect support and will not negotiate those stances. If you do not agree then you are free to move on.

But the church is also guilty of doing the same in regards to marriage equality and the abortion issue.

They expect people to support them in the way they see those issues when obviously people dont.

If those issues are to ever be dealt some sort of understanding and mutual respect is going to be necessary. Otherwise the arguing will go on forever.

I can concede the points mentioned in response to my posts as being right and in keeping with the free exercise of religion.

I will say that after some thought on the issue. A problem that almost every group is guilty of is the seeking of others to play by your rules.

It is indeed wrong to expect someone to support something that goes against their beliefs.

Aaron again, the facts are not important. She wants to force her needs on the church. Not really needs bit her wants. The left is bent on destroying any semblance of decency or morality in this country.

The government already provides birth control through a variety of programs that taxpayer’s fund. Young Miss Fluke could have accessed any number of those without trying to force the Church to renounce a belief they’ve held for a millennium.

Aaron you don't get the left's argument. The starting point is that Govt will provide all your needs. Now you have to argue why they should not. A conservative would argue why should Govt be involved in it. I agree with the latter view.

I don't listen to Rush so I have no idea how much he fanned this topic. I do know that the young lady from GT was the one who went to Congress and stretched the facts because of the agenda she had.

You say that were it not for Rush though that a compromise could be reached. The Church has staunchly opposed birth control for over 1000 years. Their opposition is so ingrained that it has become part of the religious practice. The 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So why should the Church compromise?

I want my, I want my, I want my free BC. Money for nothing, phones for free. I want my, I want my, I want my free BC. That's the way you do it, live your life for free. That's the way you do it, birth control for thee. I want my, I want my, I want my free BC. Sorry, Mark.

Rush is neither an elected official nor a journalist. He is a opinionated entertainer that, based on his ratings, is very successful. I don't see him as any harsher than Bill Mayer or Ed Schultz just much more succesful.

And Rush set the tone of the debate.

A rather harsh one at that.

Entitlement. That in a word is what's wrong with this country.

Myth Rush did not decide one day to talk about free birth control. Sandra Fluke brought this up.

Also I dont think you understand what I am saying about Rush.

The act of forcing a religious institution to cover something they dont support isn't the problem. I am sure a proper dialog on the issue can lead to compromise or an understanding on how a person can get all the coverage the wish and still work for a religious institution.

But due to Rush fanning the flames that dialog is impossible.

You ever tried to make a deal with someone in who is taking an uncompromising approach?

No understanding can be reached in that kind of climate.

Things like this need to be discussed because it can and will find itself interjected in other issues of this nation.

What if discrimination on the grounds of religious freedom is allowed to take place?

That would move us back as a nation.

Let me ask you this. What would happen if a 9-11 level attack were to take place on Obama's watch?

I think it safe to say the right would be awash in calls for Obama's impeachment then imprisonment.

The nation came together with Bush. The right would not extend that olive branch to Obama.

Obama is far more scrutinized than Bush ever was.

The point being that an attack on this nation would cause the right to blame Obama. But if you put a Republican in Obama's place they wouldn't blame anyone other than those responsible for the attack.

Ild prefer neither be infringed.

“Sorry but Rush is the one that got the hounds to howling on this one.”

So the 31 year old Georgetown student who had access to free and/or reduced birth control available from at least 3 other government organizations yet chose to sue the University because their organization has opposed birth control for about 5 times longer than we’ve been a country and then falsified testimony before Congress bears no responsibility?

“…bite them right the heck back.”

You mean worse than the lefts treatment of GWB?

“…specifically listed as being caused by "lifestyle" choices.”

Doesn’t that already happen? Insurance companies do it every day with people who participate in what they deem risky sports or for someone who doesn’t get “prior” approval.

So why is it alright for them to engage in such actions but so objectionable for the church to request their 1st Amendment rights be respected?