Mitch-

Can't find your email on this page. Anyhow, as someone interested in concealed carry, you may want to comment on this Doug Grow column from yesterday:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/465/4777226.html

As an atheist neo-libertarian, I was always agnostic about the issue as it did involve anyone’s rights per se but was rather a debate about privileges – namely having the convenience of the having issues such as property disposition, child custody, and medical decisions automatically being dealt with in one standard civil marriage contract rather than having to make the effort to draft an agreement on your own. AFAIK nothing ever preventing anyone from having whatever private ceremony they wanted and naming whomever they wanted in their will or buying property together or making them the party responsible for making health care decisions, etc.

The thing is though, even though I am not religious, I am decidedly pro-rule of law when it comes to courts following original intent rather than simply making up a rationale to fit their desired outcome (as happened in Massachusetts) or elected officials deciding to ignore the law outright (as happened in San Francisco).

It would be one thing if this had been decided through democratically elected legislators rather than being imposed by activist judges. As Mitch so correctly pointed out, the other side has demonstrated through its “jackbooted demands for acquiescence” that it is unwilling to act in good faith and is willing to break the rules when they do not agree with them or to surreptitiously try to change the rules with an activist court and use our own support for the rule of law against us in the hopes that we are willing to go along with an illegitimate sham.

This sort of behavior has pushed me from being on the fence to on the pro-Federal Marriage Amendment side of the issue.

That's a good quote, but I read a better one today.

"The only way the Sarin bomb gets any exposure in the media is if an American had shoved it up an Iraqi prisoner's arse."

The problem for me is not really should gays be allowed to marry, the question is: should people with conservative or religious principles be treated with respect and their ideas taken seriously; they should be free from ridicule and from being lambasted as no better than the KKK.

Ann,

Feel free to ask yourself any question you want.

While you're at it, get working on that "is the world round" thing.

Ann,

Seriously, now - that's the sort of attitude that's helped sour me - a conserative one-time grudging supporter of gay marriage - into at most someone who is indifferent, and leaning against, the idea. So many of the arguments devolve down to "Opposing us proves you're a neanderthal!".

Attacking your opponent does nothing for your case.

Especially in my comment section.