yay? Good for you, cause you have such higher standards to "ban" something cause someone believes something that you dont agree with...

hey, another person to make the long lines shorter!

I'm in the collectibles business.If I find any Muppets,I'm going to burn them.It's long over-due that people learn to tolerate those with opposing views and not threaten violence or government bullying.

Thanks, Robert! Great post! I find those that are the least tolerant of others are those, like michelle, with their Faux outrage. Shows how truely shallow minded, disrespectable, intolerant they are. I guess if someone has an oposing view then instantly they falsly accuse them of a whole host of things. Mentally inept.
Me, I'll eat Mor-chikn!

So what? Who cares?

"If the gay community can be so vocal, why can't everyone else be?"

Right, because anti-gay people are normally so reserved about it. What a nonsensical point.

The gay community is vocal about wanting to be treated equally under the law, and for refusing to be demeaned as second class citizens. The anti-gay community (like the anti-Civil Rights community back in the day) is vocal in their hatred of an oppressed minority). There is a difference.

Where does 'hatred' come from? Not agreeing with gay lifestyle or not agreeing to gay marriage does not equate to 'hatred'. sure there's hatred out there, but no where here was it suggested.

he did nothing wrong. If you don't like it don't eat there.
God bless him and everyone like him who has the balls to say what they believe and stick to their guns.

"The gay community is vocal about wanting to be treated equally under the law, and for refusing to be demeaned as second class citizens"

Thats not true, they want to stop anything that is against it/them. And as a group, they shouldnt have any more rights than a person has. I'm tired of their fist hands telling me what I think,say, and do is wrong. I dont care who you're buddies with, I dont want/need to know, but you are forcing it upon me and I'm going to voice it. Live the way you want, I do, but I dont have to listen to the nonsense.

MD you say "as a group, they shouldn't have any more rights than a person has." You have the automatic right to marry, to inherit your spouse's estate if there's no will, to parent your children with your spouse without having to get lawyers involved to draw up special paperwork and make agreements with schools and care providers so you can do so, to visit your spouse in intensive care and to make medical decisions for them when they cannot, to not be fired because who you love and care for. MD, you have more rights than LGBT people have. And yes, we'd like gain those rights, which would not give us "extra" rights or "any more rights" than you, but rather would give us "equal" rights.

Huh? Plenty of people boycott Wal-Mart so that's a horrific example. I'm sure plenty of people will now boycott Chik-Fil-A. That's the point. It's called capitalism, deal with it.

Um, Yeah. Plenty of people boycott Wal-Mart (I'm one of them). What a terrible example.

as jag indicates, thats capitalism. deal.

Actually, Joe, we should all probably boycott Wal-mart for precisely the reasons you mentioned. They're too huge not to be paying their employees a living wage and healthcare. And haven't you heard about the massive bribery scandal in Mexico where they paid officials for building permits? And then the institutional gender discrimination that has prevented many women from rising to senior level positions in the company? So it's more than a business just being a 'chicken joint.' Consumers have to be aware of where their dollars are going.

well Michelle, what is a living wage for you? They pay 12.00 an hour for PT as my son is working there, is that enough? What do you want, What is your defination of a living wage or is it something you are just spewing because you heard it on some liberal blog? By the way, I ate at Chick-fil-A twice last week and i'll eat there more this week, and i'm healthy!

Free Speech is great rite we have as Americans as long as the company you own is not involved when you make a public stand. The President/CEO of Chik-Fil-A made sure that you knew he was the CEO of the company, rather than a private citizen speaking his mind. You are right, it is a chicken joint. Lets leave the values of judeo-Christian-ism out of the chicken sandwich recipe. I do not and will not boycott his place because they make a good chicken sandwich. I just do not listen to his corporate saber rattling

I havent bought at walmart or chickfila in over a decade, going on two. There are plenty of other stores and restaurants, especially locally owned businesses to support. Sure, they will never go away but that doesnt mean i have to support them financially. I firmly believe in free speech and freedom of religion, which means tolerating the intolerant. I also firmly believe in the separation of church and state. The government shouldnt interfere with businesses because of the religious beliefs of the owners. just as religion shouldnt interfere with government. No one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on others through state and federal laws. Some people think gay marriage is a sin. Fine, dont do it or allow it in their church, But they have absolutely NO RIGHT to impose their religious belief on others. Otherwise, we might as well just institute sharia law.

I like your remark, Michelle. "Tolerating the intolerant". Those with differing views have been doing that for many years and it certainly goes both ways with the majority. It's the "over burdening, grossly outspoken and name calling" group that seems to be intolerant of any view other than their own. What everyone seems to "forget" is that there are many people that feel the same as the Chic-fil-A president that give alot for scolarships, free healthcare, etc, to anyone. take Bill Gates, it's funny but I certainly don't hear the vitreol because he believes the same, or is it because he's also a liberal? Go figure....many are obviously hipocrits and only like to complain about those that have differing views and disrespecting them. that's a show of ignorance, intolerance and being intellectually bankrupt. Too bad you haven't eaten there, it's has good sandwiches and unlike McD's, certainly healthier.

Bob, I think Bill Gates supports gay marriage, he reportedly donated money to support it?
If this were just verbal arguments and attacks about beliefs it would be one thing. But religious beliefs have been imposed on others through the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws banning same sex marriage. These laws actively deny rights to a group of people based on the religious beliefs of others, which is a lot worse then the verbal name calling that keeps sidetracking everyone.

Thanks Michelle, but I believe you are wrong about Bill Gates, as he gave alot, through his foundation for heterosexual marriage as well as adoption. As for your comment about "religious beliefs", I would also point out the glaring hypocricy of that comment when government stepped in and demanded the Catholic church place "birth control" on the churches workers health plans which is against their tenets of faith and original contract. Is it the same? As for the Federal law, is it the word "marriage" over "union" that is the problem? The way I see it is frankly, I don't care. I appreciate what the religious say and believe. Everyone should have the right to have a civil union or be married. Calling names, when there are others that don't have the same beliefs that they want others to have, shows the grossest of intolerance and bigotry. Read the comments decrying the president of Chic-Fil-A. It's almost akin to the brown shirts of 1938 and the Jews in Germany. intolerance of a differing view as well as defaming that person shows a total lack of any intelligence, period!

So Michelle, does that mean that the only way for CFA to get permits in the liberal bastions of Chicago, Boston, SF, etal, will be to grease a politicians palm to get a permit there as well? Seems that their hypocrisy is showing. It's not ok for a CEO who honestly answered a question put forth to him to say anything against same sex marriage to build a business in Chicago, but it's ok to welcome someone who is out in the open regarding his hatred and intolerance toward that same group. I give you the honorable Louis Farrakahn.

Garb: That is the burden of freedom of speech. Cathy can think and say whatever he wants so long as he doesnt break any laws or infringe anyone elses rights, and in return, others are free to think and say what they want about his professed beliefs so long as they also dont break the law or infringe on his rights. The real crimes here are the laws that have been enacted to deny rights to gay people. Those laws need to be taken down. point your attacks toward the real enemy, not me.

Bob, same sex marriage/union is not allowed/recognized in many states, so in most places people have been denied this right.. It is not just an argument over calling it civil union or marriage, but whether people are allowed to do so at all. The defense of marriage act denies many benefits of marriage to same sex couples, regardlessif it is union or marriage.

This is not the same as birth control, this is not about forcing the Catholic church to perform and accept same sex marriages. This is about allowing same sex couples the right to get married in their own churches or obtain civil unions which are equally recognized by law.

I find it so funny that so many rail against Walmart, then turn around and buy clothes made in sweat shops at lord and Taylor and many others. By the way, it would be nice to find out what they mean by "a living wage". My son works part time and makes 14 an hour. Do they want 60k a year? Typical hypocrites.

I dont know about those people you talk about, but i dont shop at lord and taylor. Thankfully, there are more businesses offering products which they have tried to obtain using fair practices from countries that have fair labor laws, and some businesses that do their best to treat their employees fairly as well. Walmart certainly had a lot of poor practices, and after Getting in trouble over the years, have moved to change their image. Here in maryland, a very progressive state, i am not surprised your son might make $12 or 14 an hour. Is this entry level? In texas, where i grew up, walmart came in, put all the small local mom and pop shops out of business, and only hired part time min wage for years. I am sure they pay better now since the scandal with illegal immigrants being paid less than min wage, but i still wont shop there! I try to find businesses that make a commitment to fair practices. There are more and more every year.

who is "we" stevieboy? Sounds like you're the intolerant one to me. you, "collectively", what a joke.

Well said Steve O. I often wonder what biblical definition people refer to when saying they support the marriage God defined in the Bible. Really?

"hat I don't understand is why completely demonize him for his beliefs just because they are different from some someone else's belief"

Because *liberals* are such a tolerant bunch
*rolls-eyes*

If he were sitting at home and just believing this stuff, no one would care.

He uses funds from his Chicken Sandwich business to donate to groups which work to advocate, support, and enact hateful policies towards gays and lesbians in this country based on a belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. These groups also demonize gays and lesbians for their actions (calling their relationships immoral). This ends up marginalizing many gay and lesbian couples who are in loving committed relationships. (See DOMA and, until recently, DADT).

Again, your comment makes sense only if he were just sitting around and saying things. The fact is he directs money and power towards groups that advocate for actual policy that ensures unequal rights for gays and lesbians which is hurtful and cruel. He isn't a passive observer, he is an active participant.

Corbin, his OPINION is his opinion. He just has more power with his opinion than us peions. What country do you think you're in? God bless him and everyone like him who has the balls to say what they believe and stick to their guns. It's "hateful" because he doesn't believe in gay marriage?? slow your roll... He doesn't have to be politically correct for anyone. Thank god

Rick, good points. However, I disagree that the backlash amounts to demonetization for his beliefs, intolerance or hate mongering (at least not on any wide scale). The CEO can obviously think and say whatever he wants. Everyone else obviously has the right to be angry over said bigoted statements.

The Boston mayor beating his chest about not letting them open a franchise is dumb. Of course he doesn't have the right to limit the franchise w/o merit and of course a lot of people on the Left are taking issue with him insinuating otherwise. Other than that, we're definitely in agreement that people are allowed to protest whatever they want. Whether it's Chick-fil-a this month for being anti-gay or JC Penney last month for having Ellen DeGeneres in their ad.

well corbin, because others don't agree with your "view" then they are bad. Wow, how totally intolerant and shallow minded of you. He has a right to donate to whomever he pleases, BTW, includes many good charities helping those less fortunate . When have you given (rolls eyes....) to anyone other than to your own wants and intolerant views.

Well stated Rick I'm in total agreement.

Corbin Dallas Multipass
"He uses funds from his Chicken Sandwich business to donate to groups which work to advocate, support, and enact hateful policies towards gays and lesbians in this country based on a belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman"
And you know this, how? And I'm sure the GLAADs, and LG groups donate to the most perfect groups,

Besides, when did you start caring what a company donates to? This story is all up, because gays were put out there in the limelight and they had to show their muscles

the Daily Show sucks

Bee Jay must be from Boston.

not sure what that means. but hey, love dem Patriots

Then you didn't watch the segment, Bee Jay! A shame to miss out on the hilariousness.

that's so gay

just tell me what time the chics are kissing

I'm sorry Michelle, WHERE do you see me have ANY thing against gays?
I'm for Chic Fil A stating their beliefs, and sticking by it.
Fact is I have nothing against gays.
and what's that have to do with not wanting to see 2 HAIRY dudes kiss but would love to see 2 beautiful women kiss??
that's human nature Michelle. Sorry, 6 billion people agree...

um yes I do. He has his rights and you have yours to protest it.
I don't like some pansy burning the US Flag but he has the right (I think)... doesn't mean I won't beat his ass in the process

Michelle, I'm sorry but your double standard might be showing. Do you enjoy a tasty coffee beverage from Starbucks or Seattle's Best (aka Starbucks Cheap) or perhaps a nice Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream from time to time? If so then why is it OK for them to use their profits to support groups that advocate against individuals solely on the basis for their love for meat? Both my sexual orientation and my love for meat are my own personal lifestyle choices and neither offer me individual protection as a class of citizen in the same way as race or religion. Now with that in mind, why is it perfectly OK for a company to donate their profits or the CEO of a company to donate his own money to an organization that advocates on behalf of a specific race or advocates against an individual's freedom of religion? I suppose it is not fair for me to point out the shoe on the other foot when one is right and the other is just plain wrong. The people who want to make an issue out of this are well within their right to do so and that is the same right the gentleman in question was exercising and since we are not talking about Burger King you cannot have it your way.

The moral significance of advocating "against individuals solely on the basis for their love of meat (what?)" is far less than the moral significance of advocating for people who love each other the way most married couples do to not receive the same benefits as other married couples (again, benefits that can save or life or cause relief in times of great pain).

No one currently, legally, is oppressing your rights to eat meat. But right now, loving couples are not allowed to get married, and that causes harm. Your argument is prima facie ridiculous.

Not to mention comparing the choice of eating red meat to someone's sexual identity is also absurd.

Also, I tried to look for wtf you are talking about and I don't see anything about Ben and Jerry's or Seattle's Best (owned by Starbucks) advocating either for vegetarianism or against meat inclusive diets. If you could supply a link, I'd appreciate it.

Oh Corbin there you go again. You take one small part of my comment, twist it completely out of context, and then add your own interpretation without taking the time to fully understand the comment as a whole. So let me see if I can clear this up for your logically impaired mind. I was not equating one example to another nor did I even remotely imply that I was. I was using them as examples of how businesses and businesses owners can and will flex their first amendment rights by donating money to any cause they wish and by expressing their personal beliefs in a public forum as they see fit. It is their right to do so just as it is your right to take your business elsewhere. All I was pointing out to Michelle was the double standard she might have been guilty of if she does in fact enjoy a little B&J Ice Cream or a nice refreshing Frappuccino because S-Bux and B&J do just as she was accusing Chik-Fil-A of doing. The only difference being they give money to liberal advocates including pro LGBT groups so I guess that makes it OK for them but not OK for it to go the other way?

"All I was pointing out to Michelle was the double standard she might have been guilty of if she does in fact enjoy a little B&J Ice Cream or a nice refreshing Frappuccino because S-Bux and B&J do just as she was accusing Chik-Fil-A of doing. The only difference being they give money to liberal advocates including pro LGBT groups so I guess that makes it OK for them but not OK for it to go the other way?"

Not to speak for Michelle but, yeah, exactly, that's the entire point. There's a moral objection to one and no moral objection to the other. Just because you abstain from doing business with one company you morally object to doesn't mean you have to abstain from all businesses that donate to anyone.

"I was not equating one example to another nor did I even remotely imply that I was." So then... "Both my sexual orientation and my love for meat are my own personal lifestyle choices and neither offer me individual protection as a class of citizen in the same way as race or religion."

I'm not going into the whole personal lifestyle choices thing which is a whole nother debate, but I don't think you understand what equate means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equate
"to reduce to an average; make such correction or allowance in as will reduce to a common standard of comparison."

I'm all for Gays having the same rights and access to the benefits and protections afforded heterosexuals. Just don't call it marriage. As an old white guy, I'm constantly bombarded with accusations that am an evil, racist, homophobic jerk, simply because I disagree with what someone else opinions. Please stop painting everyone that disagrees with you with that broad brush of hatred.

Pansy- to refer to someone as weak
Pink pansy- now that might have some gay undertones

and yes, if it's constitutionally protected, it IS ok. they've done nothing wrong. leave them alone. you don't like it don't eat there.
pretty simple really

the narrow minded asshole being jim Henson company? Or is it you, when you only want others to "jump" to your own view? Seems to me that you are as intolerant and hypocritical as can be.

While calling someone an "asshole" might not be civil, neither is using your money to fight for policies which discriminate and oppress. It isn't civil to use your money to advocate for policies which keep loved ones out of the hospital room in times of emergency or keep partners from receiving insurance benefits that might save a life because of their gender. In fact, I'd say that since that's an active role in the political process, it is a whole lot more uncivil, and it causes direct and irreparable harm.

So yes, boo hoo for the CEO of a chicken company who has to tolerate being called "asshole" on a few forums for actively pursuing policies that are hurtful. His feelings being hurt are the problem with this country.

Wackadoo? Really, you think that was a conversation halting insult? I specifically chose a word that was too nonsensical to be taken as offensive. I wan’t demonizing him, I pointing out he doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about, is being self-contradictory and reveals it in his statement.

For those of you who couldn’t decipher the sarcasm, he claims that we invite God’s wrath by redefining marriage from that which is put forth in the bible. But we’ve done that numerous times throughout the ages and Dan Cathy doesn’t seem have an issue with those redefinitions, just this one.

His logic can be seen through by a child. If God’s word in the bible is infallible and it says polygamy, et.al. is acceptable then defining marriage between one man and one woman is also inviting God’s wrath. He damns others for going against “HIS” will and in the same statement does exactly the same thing.

That sort of hypocrisy and ignorance about his own subject is what I was addressing. I think he has every right to say ignorant or non-logical things, I also think others have every right to call him out for it.

Well Michelle. Looks like you got the final word. I guess asking what you believe a "living wage" is can't be asked. I guess your "facts" you asked about are my child working through school at Walmart must have strained your tender sensibilities to hurl such a childish barb. Yes, I love my kids, so maybe you don't have that in your life. Good for you, but talk about twisting ( which the original comment wasn't aimed at you but at Pete) others equated it to being an evil place as supposed in chick-fil-a in certain minds. Sorry I don't ascribe to your point of view. I see nothing wrong with either of them. Sorry.

My thoughts exactly.

I am sure this argument has been replayed over and over again throughout history. Just change the topic. Slavery. Interracial marriage. Womens rights. The Bible and Koran have been misused by the intolerant throughout history as an excuse to deny freedom to others. Each person reads what they want and ignores the rest.

More twisting going on there. Focus on the discussion and stop projecting.

Says mr brag bout my sons pay at walmart when i cant come up with a better reply...

Really Michelle? You need to act like a child when you don't have anything intelligent to say? Typical uneducated left wing crybaby. I feel so sorry that you think you are so freekin perfect. Maybe if you had some facts before you spewed your crap, you wouldn't appear to be so lame. shame that you think you are so perfect. LOL!

Hi bob, i have tried to use facts in my replies to you. You have not provided much in your reponses to me other than telling me to so stop twisting things and stick to the topic while at the same time you went off topic with your opinions on walmart shoppers... Who is the hypocrite? Did i rant at you for bringing up walmart? No, i responded with my thoughts. Ii am not crying or complaining, just calling you out for the internet troll that you are. So, feel free to respond with any more and whining and any more insults, i am done trying to have a conversation with you.

Ok, one last little gem for you Bob, a quote of yourself: "I guess if someone has an oposing view then instantly they falsly accuse them of a whole host of things. Mentally inept"
Hmm you couldnt keep yourself above this either. Cheers!

In addition michelle, this discussion is about chick-fil-a, not African Americans, slavery, women's rights...it's about a persons religious beliefs and the intolerant views of others. May be hard for some but you can't equate this with another....

Bob,
This is exactly the same as those previous struggles because those opposing the civil rights of other used the Bible and religion to justify their position just like they are doing now. In the 1800's the majority of the south used the Bible and their religion to justify slavery, in the 1900's the majority used the Bible and their religion to justify segregation. Even as late as the 1960's the Bible was used to justify denying marriage rights to bi-racial people. Women's right were denied based on men's religious believes and the Bible.

So you see, what the owner of CFA is doing by donating millions of dollars to groups thay are fighting to deny gays and lesbians marriage rights does equate to the other. All those previous struggles had to overcome those who hide behind the Bible and their religious believes, just like the anti marriage equality movement is doing now. But marriage equality will prevail, just like all those previous movements did, and the world will continue to spin.

Beth, I appreciate what you feel is happening, but I don't see it that way. He has donated millions for many causes, one being the tenant of his faith that marriage is between a man and woman. Sorry, I'm all for the equal rights, but that is his belief. If you see what others are saying, many ripe with vitriol, that they want to take away his religion? To say that he gave millions to discriminate is not accurate nor fair. There are many sites that can show both sides of the giving he's done, many inaccurate and unfair. For the record, the man was simply saying his beliefs according to his faith. The vitriol came from those wanting to belittle him and dismiss his faith and him. Sounded like the Putsch of 1938. Marriage is a state item, but please respect the faith. That is where intolerance, bigotry and hate seem to come to the fore- front.

If you think Gahndi would say uncivil tone is the problem with India and not the oppression of the citizens by the British Government, or that MLK would say the uncivil tone is the problem with America and not the Jim Crow laws and pervasive racism that oppresses people of color, you really don't understand them.

You want to pooh pooh uncivil tone, fine, but saying that's the problem with the country is over inflating it.

And again, this isn't people calling him an asshole just for voicing his opinions, it's for his actual participation in the political and policy process that causes direct harm to real people.

yeah, and...? that's his right in this country. whether you like it or not.

Huh? What, people have a freedom to be bigots but other people don't have the freedom to chastise said bigots? No one here is hypocritical except you, Danielle. Crybabies? Yeah, right, and all those people who stood in the face of bigots to give you (women) the right to vote, etc. were crybabies, too. SMH.

you're both right.

How is he a bigot if he is following his religion? Does it mean your'e a bigot for following your beliefs and spouting names at him? There are two feet and two shoes and before people start making up stories about who he gives to, find out the facts as several hypocrits here that are slaming him need to look carefully in the mirror. What they see is exactly what they show such faux outrage over. intolerance is both ways.

yes Beth, I would be ok with it. I might not agree or like it. i'm definitely ok with it. Having an OPINION is not discrimination or oppression or hatred. no one has to like everyone. if someone doesn't like me for my color, I don't care. bunch of victim mentality. so weak. pathetic.

Bee Jay I'm not talking about having an opinion, or whether someone likes me. I'm talking about funding a group whose main purpose is to deny civil rights to others. You're OK with that?

you're comparing apples to oranges and are non-sensible at that.

amen Harry. be careful, you're sure to get attacked. these loonies will tell you how your opinion is one of hate and oppression. good for you.

exactly

well said............

so have Hospitals change their Visitation rights policy. have the tax law amended. have insurance modify survivor benefits. maybe you miss the point. don't discount what marriage stands for. the union of marriage is not available for everyone. you don't fit. the line needs to be drawn in the sand.

Beth, Me thinks you doth exaggerate a wee bit. 1,000 legal rights? I challenge you to list more than 100.

Now, I will also take a moment to point out a very simple fact that seems to cloud peoples perspective of the larger argument. If the LGBT community would take the word marriage out of their argument for equal rights then achieving those equal rights would quickly become a whole lot easier.

In the 2011 session of the General Assembly the most comprehensive LGBT rights bill ever was written and sponsored by a Republican and it included legalizing Civil Unions for gay and lesbian couples. This bill provided more rights for LGBT couples than the bill that was brought to the General Assembly and passed in this year's session but sadly the 2011 bill was not even brought to the Senate floor for a vote for one reason. It did not include the word marriage. Well maybe two reasons, it was of course a Republican's bill so I'm guessing the Democrats may not have wanted to give a Republican the win on the issue. So I ask this simple question, what is more important to the LGBT community as a whole, having the same 1,000 legal rights you claim a married heterosexual couple have or having less rights but using the word marriage in the legal process?

JustABill thank you

Just a bill, do you hear the crickets?

Here is the link to the GAO report that documents over 1000 legal rights that the Defense of Marriage Act has taken away from same sex couples. http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/223674.pdf.

Wikipedia summarizes it too:
In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003.[28] With respect to Social Security, housing, and food stamps, the GAO found that "recognition of the marital relationship is integral to the design of the program[s]." The other major categories the GAO identified were veteran's benefits, including pensions and survivor benefits; taxes on income, estates, gifts, and property sales; and benefits due federal employees, both civilian and military. Among many specifics, it noted the rights of the widow or widower of the creator of a copyrighted work and certain financial disclosure requirements that include the spouses of members of Congress and certain officers of the federal government. Education loan programs and agriculture price support and loan programs also implicate spouses. Financial aid to "family farms" is restricted to those in which "a majority interest is held by individuals related by marriage or blood."[27]

thanks for pointing the opposite out. Being grossly intolerant of others views, whether it's religious or personal, is a problem that you so pointedly show. It's also so laughable you stretch to point out the "ills of the world are everyone elses fault" only shows the total lack of any intellectually honesty. The people like "you" denouncing others is no different that brown shirts breaking glass of storefronts. It's your view or no ones, is that it? pretty simple minded of you, thanks for showing everyone else that. most people that don't subscribe to your warped view just want to be left alone to themself and their faith, it's "people like you" that expects everyone else to say we will do what you want. Sorry bub. Time to grow up. You need help with your "stretch" and certainly are quite intolerant of others. I assume, quite bigoted too. I feel sorry for you, really do.

Must be hard to be so intellectually void of any facts, frank. I say they are liberals that are twisting from one bigotry to another.

Beth, this is great reading material. Thanks.

Couldn't have said it better. The problem is, is that if you don't agree with what THEY say, then instantly you are a hater, and a whole host of other names. funny, though, it shows how truely lacking in any intellectually honesty they are and intolerant they are. Funny, it comes mainly from the left. No wonder I'm independent now.

very well put. as you see you will get hammered for saying that... you're not a hater and you have every right to feel that way as most Americans do. But they will shove it down your throats & if you don't like it somehow you're a bully or whatever. thanks for standing up

Thanks Frank for showing me the outlandish comments coming from the left. The fact is that many things are "jambed down the throats" of taxpayers or citizens or general people in the population with differing views regardless... You, saying what you say only goes to prove that you have 1)- no facts so you resort to childish comments or 2) have nothing with any intellectually and factual basis to report so you resort to, childish retorts or dimissive ignorant comments. Almost as good as, "Oh, YEA?"......

Frank, think for a moment what you say. How is it being showed down our throats? My faith frowns on same sex marriage, yet people like you "push it forward". I don't care what you do in your bedroom, just don't expect me to accept it. I'll accept you for who you are, not your practice. You liberals already have "shoved" birthcontrol down Catholic doctrine's throat, so yes, there it is. I thought you would be able to remember that, but I guess not. there is intolerance and bigotry from you on that, but with your comments, I don't expect any different.

Fact check, Frank. ...proof please or is it just another lie?

No, just a bunch of honest hard working people standing up for their rights against a bunch of serial bullies and ignorant intolerant morons like you.

Really? Guess again. So I signed up to read about something on a business trip. So, that's a stretch for you, believe what you want. It's obvious you are trying to get me to stoop to your level. Insult my boys, your hidden and can do that, but it only shows your lack of maturity. You really are a disgusting troll.

Thanks frank, I'll take your outrage into advisement.
. Isn't it funny that you are a little like calling the kettle black with yours? Have a nice day!

Garb67-who has understood that definition of marriage for several thousand years? Certainly not Abraham, or King David, or most of the figures in the Old Testament. They all had multiple wives, and in some cases male partners (Jonathan). Fundamental Mormons don't hold to that definition, and I am pretty sure neither do Muslims. Marriage for many centuries was nothing more than a business contract between two families and had nothing to do with love or religion and conducted in front of the town not the church. Should we go back to that definition since that's the way it had been for many centuries? It was the Catholic church that inserted religion into it as a way to get more money for the church.

All federal and state laws use the word marriage to describe the legal rights of a spouse (survivor benefits, retirement, etc), without calling the union between same-sex couples a marriage those benefits are denied to them. That's why the word marriage is important. In the state of Maryland the law that was recently passed protected churches from having to perform a same-sex marriage if their religion did not support such a marriage. The law is about legal rights, not religion.