"Adam and Eve," not "Adam and Steve," committed the first sin

Matt Barber of the conservative Liberty Council went off on "homosexual activists" earlier this week, accusing pro-marriage equality folks of gradually leading America onto a road of polygamy and incest, hell-bent on "deconstructing the Judeo-Christian notion of marriage as marriage has always been."

Let's be generous to Mr. Barber and assume that whatever is in the Bible - as disagreeable and detestable as some of it may be (remember, the Bible supports slavery, as well as putting gays to death) - is right. According to Barber, homosexual fornicators are the bringers of polygamy and incest, while Matt's righteous heterosexual living has been society's saving grace. But reading from the Book of Genesis all the way through to the Book of Revelation, it's not been gay people who have multiplied across generations via polygamy and incest - it's been straight people.

Take Earth's very first humans (according to the Bible). Bigots will tell you there was no such thing as "Adam and Steve." And they are correct, because it was actually Adam and Eve's children who were forced by God to commit incest in order to populate the earth.  It was also Adam and Eve who are responsible for kicking mankind out of paradise (Eve taking that bite of the apple).  And it was Adam and Eve's child Cain who committed the first murder.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that Adam and Eve lived in sin, since it's not entirely clear they were ever married.

Adam and Eve's other kids include Seth, as well as "other sons and daughters" the Bible neglects to name (they probably got into lousy colleges or something). Even more interesting? Not one homosexual to be seen.

The Bible continues on with more accounts of heterosexual incest, including Lot and his daughters, Abraham's marriage to his half-sister Sarah, and Isaac's marriage to his cousin Rebekah. If traditional, Biblical marriage means having to marry one of my sisters, or that weird cousin with the One Direction obsession, count me out.

Matt also insists that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Returning to the Bible (the one book that matters, remember?), it's not gays who have monster-trucked society via polygamy, but rather heterosexuals. Countless Old Testament figures revered by Christians had multiple wives, including Abraham (a double-whammy, since he's also the incest guy previously mentioned), King David, King Solomon, Moses, Gideon, and Saul.

Again, not one homo in the bunch.

Even more telling are Bible verses seemingly condoning heterosexual polygamy, like Deuteronomy 21:15 ("If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other...). Equally awkward is that conservatives frequently cite this very book when condemning homosexuality. But it's not like bigots are known for cherry-picking the Bible or anything like that.

And finally, when it comes to the Gingrich Award for Most Wives, the honor goes to David's son Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines to his credit. Again, none of those seemed to be gay marriages, but rather traditional, Biblical, heterosexual marriages. Sure, today's conservatives claim that marriage is between one man and woman, but if we're following the word of God as shown in the Bible, Newt deserves to get his bush burned for not having married all three of his wives at once.

Matt Barber want us to believe that gay marriage is to blame for society's downfall, and will be ultimately responsible for destroying traditional marriage. Except that claim couldn't be any more false. Some Bible study would show that it's never been gays who have been responsible for these acts, but rather heterosexuals. Furthermore, when it comes to redefining traditional marriage, it's heterosexuals who no longer follow the Biblical tradition of marrying 700 women at once.

Now excuse me while I go wash my eyes out with bleach. Read the rest of this post...

Anti-gay Amish pastor guilty

Some respect for family and children. From the NYT:

Photo via Shutterstock

After only four hours of deliberation, a federal jury in Burlington, Vt., found an Amish-Mennonite pastor guilty of abetting international parental kidnapping in a widely publicized case involving a same-sex union and religious opponents of homosexuality.

After splitting up with her former partner, Janet Jenkins, in 2003, Ms. Miller, who is not related to Mr. Miller, moved to Virginia, declared herself a born-again Christian, tried in court to strip Ms. Jenkins of her parental rights and interfered with mandated visits. In 2009, as a frustrated Family Court judge in Vermont threatened to transfer custody of the girl, Ms. Miller disappeared with her daughter.

Read the rest of this post...

Episcopal church approves same-sex rites

It's not "marriage," but it's enough to give the Anglican bigots in Africa an aneurysm. From the LA Times:

The Episcopal Church has approved a liturgy that will allow priests to bless same-sex couples, making the church the biggest in the United States to endorse such a rite.

Starting on Dec. 2, the first Sunday of Advent, priests whose bishops give the OK will be allowed to bless the unions of gay and lesbian couples, whether same-sex marriage is legal in that state or not. (It’s currently legal in six states, as well as in Washington, D.C.)

The church’s two voting bodies approved the rite by nearly an 80% majority Tuesday at the Episcopal General Convention in Indianapolis.

Read the rest of this post...

What anti-gay chaplains?

Josh Seefried of OutServe writes about how the religious right is smearing military chaplains in their zeal to be anti-gay.

The military chaplain corps is one of the most respectable and professional careers in the military. They embrace not only their religion but their creed to respect, love, and serve every single sailor, soldier, and Marine in the military.

Right now there is a war being waged on the chaplaincy, and it is not coming from the gays in the military. It's coming from outside groups proclaiming that military chaplains are anti-gay. There are even gay chaplains who are scared of losing their jobs because of the misconception that gay people cannot be chaplains.

In the story, Josh gives a number of beautiful examples of military chaplains being supportive of gay troops. Do read them. Here's one:

I recently mentioned to my chaplain that I was going to get married to Chris a few months down the road. Now, in all honesty, I said it to see if my chaplain would react differently to that bit of news. "Was that the one you introduced me to at the Christmas party?" she asked... I nodded yes and waited for the reaction. "Praise be to God! I am so happy for you. You two will make such a great couple!" Honestly, I wasn't expecting that, it was quite a welcome declaration. She then went on about how people should be with whoever they are happiest with and that is good in God's eyes. She even offered any help with the matter! (Navy Petty Officer, Hawaii)

Read the rest of this post...

On Mormons and the hypocrisy of "religious freedom"

Excellent commentary from a reader, named "A reader in Colorado," in response to my earlier post about whether it's okay for liberals not to want to vote for a Mormon Republican.

You didn't get the memo John.

Liberals and the non-religious don't get religious freedom. Such freedoms are only for conservative Christians and occasionally certain kinds of conservatives practitioners of Judaism.

Christian conservatives, for example, object to gays getting married, so gays can't get married. That's their religious freedom.

Christian conservatives demand they don't have to follow the rules others have to follow and to be allowed to deny their employees birth control, question them about their private sexual practices as employees, and fire them. They're conservative, so that's their religious freedom.

Many liberals both desire and demand that states and the Federal government recognize same sex marriage and sign same sex marriage licenses out of their religious convictions concerning equality.

They're liberals, though - so they have no religious freedom and no say in the matter.

The problem with Romney is that Mormonism, no matter how out of the mainstream, is conservative.

That means he gets every freedom about his religion, including how to impose it on other people, and as a non-conservative, or non-religious person, you just, uh, DON'T.

It's not that mormons get to do things against other people and they get to hide if you have a problem with what they do, the problem is that you aren't a right wing religious conservative so you just get to shut up about it. Another right wing religionist would have, and has had, every power to question Romney's religion.

That is the true double standard here. Not about Romney's religion versus Obama's ethnic heritage. It's about only right wing religionists in this country having any kind of religious privileges whatsoever.

Until we recognize and have a national outcry against only conservatives having religious freedom while no one else does and actually having liberals loudly demanding their own religious freedom, nothing about this will change. Because it's only with lopsided religious freedom - with some having it all, others having none of it - that these lopsided power structures exist.

Right wing religionists have special rights, including rights in the media to tell you what you must do to observe their religion, even if you aren't part of it at all.

The true question that needs to be asked is why do only conservative religionists get any religious freedom or political or media consideration in this country?

Read the rest of this post...

300 straight Mormons march in SLC Pride parade

What would Brigham Young do? Read the rest of this post...

GOP lawmaker and Baptist minister cites Bible passage calling for gays to be put to death

And guess where he's from?

Racist Mississippi, of course.

That would be the state where a plurality of Republican voters still want to outlaw inter-racial marriage.

Someone needs to ask Andy Gipson where he stands on that issue - it would be fun to watch him lose votes by coming out in favor of the co-mingling of the races.

A few fun facts about Mississippi:

- Mississippi is the lynching capital of America.
- It's also the poverty capital of the United States.
- And the hunger capital.
- And the chlamydia capital.
- And the gonorrhea capital.
- And the obesity capital.
- And the child death capital.
- It's America's least healthy state.
- It ranks last in science education.
- And has America's lowest life expectancy (the south takes up most of the bottom 11 spots on the list).

Whatever all those Republican and Baptist bigots are doing in Mississippi, it doesn't seem to be working terribly well.  I guess they're just not praying enough. Read the rest of this post...

Wash Post continues canard that marriage hasn't changed since the beginning of time

Marriage via Shutterstock

A guest writer, Matthew Franck, writes in the Washington Post today about marriage equality.  And of course, he begins with the canard that marriage hasn't been redefined since the beginning of time. Franck refers to:

"the only meaning of marriage ever known in human history."

Really, Matt?  The "only meaning" ever known?  Really?

Tell that to Mitt Romney's great-grandfather's five wives.

Tell that to the inter-racial couple that had to sue in the 1960s to overturn anti-miscegenation laws.

Tell that to married women who up until only recently were not permitted to inherit any property.

Tell that to most of our grandparents and great grandparents and beyond who had arranged marriages.

Today's version of marriage is the "only meaning of marriage ever known in human history," if you don't know human history.

Franck continues:

Here I will content myself with observing that every one of these wrongheaded criticisms is exactly on point as a criticism of President Obama and all other supporters of same-sex marriage who rely in any way on their faith, as they understand it, to justify their support. If the people of California can be faulted for “imposing their religion” on their fellow citizens by passing Proposition 8, then it is equally true that President Obama is “imposing his religion” on his fellow Americans when he says, as he did last week, that laws preventing same-sex marriage are unjust to gay couples desiring to get married. If he is not imposing his religion on anyone, neither is anyone else.

I think “you’re imposing your religion” is an incredibly bad argument against President Obama’s view. But then I have always thought it was an incredibly bad argument against the defenders of the conjugal tradition. Will those now praising the president because of his faith-based view now renounce this bogus argument when it is aimed at the other side, as it has been for years? I hope so, but I’m not holding my breath.

Cute. A few problems:

1. General opinions, like the President's, don't impose religion on anyone. Opinions that call for legislation suited to only one religion - like Matthew Franck's - do.

2. It's also cute how Franck fails to understand the logical fallacy of his own argument.

When you tell me how to live my life, based on your religion, then you are in fact imposing your religion on me.

It's what Mormons routinely do in state after state, for example - spend millions trying to force everyone in the state to live under Mormon law.  And it's what Franck is calling for in the article - the only religious freedom, apparently, is freedom for Franck to restrict our right to marry per his religious views.  Apparently, Matthew Franck now has a religious right to not be offended.  And if that's the case, I don't recall ever giving Matthew Franck my blessing to get married how he likes, lest I be offended.

Why do I need his blessing when I don't get to pick and choose the way he marries?

When I ask for the law to let you live by your religion and me by mine, then the law is religiously neutral because neither of us is being forced to live according to the other's religion. It's the height of hubris for Franck to claim that we're imposing our religion on him by permitting us to marry as we like.  What possible business is it of Franck's, religious or otherwise, what faith, or lack thereof, I marry into?  And if that's the way it works, when do I get to tell Franck what kind of marriage I think he should (or shouldn't) be permitted to have, according to my religious views?

Is it also imposing my religion on Matthew Franck that I go to communion in a Greek Orthodox church at Easter?

Franck seems to be implying in his argument that to permit a plurality of religious beliefs and actions somehow offends his conservative religious sensibilities. So why isn't any practice of any religion, other than Matthew Franck's, simply outlawed in America, so that Christians like Matthew Franck don't have to be offended by the stench of Orthodox Christians, Methodist, and other unsavory Christians?

The bottom line is that while anti-gays like Matthew Franck might not like to watch gay couples practicing their own faith (which sometimes is no faith at all), it's not an imposition on Franck's religion. Unless of course Franck's "religion" is predicated on telling other people of other faiths how to live, which far too many mainstream religions in fact are. Read the rest of this post...

If churches are going to play politics they should be taxed

Check out this North Carolina church's daily message, yesterday, right above its sign indicating that it's a polling place.  This kind of thing is corruption, pure as simple.  And of course it's "legal" in North Carolina.  I suspect mandating that only Christians can run for office would be "legal" if you put it to a vote in the state legislature.  It may be legal, but it's corrupt.  It's meant to interfere with the voting rights of fellow citizens, which is bad enough, but they're also getting a tax exemption to help them do it.

If churches want to be an appendage of the Republican party then they should be taxed as such.

Read the rest of this post...

Finding acceptance of homosexuality in the Bible

Leonard Pitts, Jr.:

Vines is a Christian, a 22-year-old Harvard undergrad raised in a conservative evangelical church in Kansas. He is also gay and says he grew up being taught that the Bible condemns his sexual orientation. He took two years off from school to research and study whether or not that assertion is true.

The result is "The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality." It's a video -- you can find it online with a simple Google search [see video below] -- of a speech he gave in March at a church in Wichita that has become a minor sensation. Small wonder. Vines' speech is a masterwork of scriptural exegesis and a marvel of patient logic, slicing and dicing with surgical precision the claim that homophobia is God ordained.

So effective is the video that after viewing it, Sandra Delemares, a Christian blogger from the United Kingdom who had, for years, spoken in staunch opposition to same-sex marriage, wrote that it "revolutionized" her thinking.

Read the rest of this post...

Dan Savage's words were harsh, but he's right

Dan Savage has apologized for using some harsh language when referring to the Bible's provisions calling for the murder of gay people and the endorsement of slavery.  Understandable since Dan has been pro-gay and anti-slavery all his life.

The question remains, is it ever okay to say that the Bible's provisions endorsing the murder of gays and the enslaving of blacks (and others) to be "bullsh*t""?  And if not, why not?

Surely no one thinks the Bible got it right on slavery?  Nor on its admonition to stone gays to death.  What other word to use for anything, even a holy book, that endorses slavery and the murder of an entire people?  Let me walk you through what 15 different English language versions of the Bible have to say, supposedly, about homosexuality:

New International Version (©1984)
"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

English Standard Version (©2001)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die.

King James Bible
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

American King James Version
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.

American Standard Version
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Bible in Basic English
And if a man has sex relations with a man, the two of them have done a disgusting thing: let them be put to death; their blood will be on them.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If any one lie with a man se with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.

Darby Bible Translation
And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them.

English Revised Version
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Webster's Bible Translation
If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

World English Bible
"'If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Young's Literal Translation
And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

While I, as a Christian, would likely avoid using the word "bullsh*t" when referring to anything in the Bible, the generic notion that God wants gays put to death is absurd. And if you disagree, I cant wait to hear your argument for why God wants to mass murder gays.

The simple fact is that the Bible got it wrong on gays. It also got it wrong on slavery (it's interesting that one of the things that most upset the kids who walked out on Dan's talk was his explanation that the Bible was used to justify slavery - do your homework kids, it was).

Now, did God or man get it wrong - meaning, did God get it wrong when he inspired the Bible, or did man misinterpret God's words? That's a distinction without a difference since many religions, and certainly America's legislators, look at the word of the Bible literally (which is odd since the Bible wasn't written in English, so the word "literal" has little meaning).

Many religions treat the Bible as an inviolate document, but the simple fact remains that the document is wrong when it comes to a few things, including the mass murder of gay people and the notion that it's okay to enslave others. Dan Savage said just that. And anyone stil upset with Dan, even after he's now apologized for using harsh, if not incorrect, language, needs to explain why they're defending the Bible's provisions about murdering gays and enslaving blacks. Read the rest of this post...

Anglican chaplain says Jesus probably gay

He said it in a Good Friday service.  That must have been an interesting service. Here's an excerpt:

Was that divisive issue a subject for Good Friday? For the first time in my ministry I felt it had to be. Those last words of Jesus would not let me escape. "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple. 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."

That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.

Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong.

Read the rest of this post...

Israeli conservatives approve ordination of gay rabbis

Apparently the matter is still rather controversial, but it's fascinating to me that a conservative movement would be okay with this at all. Read the rest of this post...

Does Rick Warren think that abolishing slavery "weakened the church"?

Like most bigots, Rick Warren makes some awfully broad pronouncements that not only don't hold up under scrutiny, but are so extreme that they could be used to justify slavery, among other things.  Just yesterday, on Easter no less, Warren warned against the evils of gay marriage.  From ABC via New Civil Rights Movement:

TAPPER: And I’m wondering if you think the church, in order to continue to thrive, might have to adjust its policy on same sex marriage?

WARREN: Actually, history shows that when the church accommodates culture, it weakens it. This is why there is a very weak church in Europe today. It’s almost non-existent in many areas.

That's interesting, because didn't the Baptists apologize a few years ago for embracing slavery? Wasn't that accommodating the culture? Why yes, they did and yes it was. From NPR:

The Southern Baptist Convention issued an apology for its earlier stance on slavery. The issue had split the Baptist church between north and south in 1845. But a century and a half later, in 1995, Southern Baptist officials formally renounced the church's support of slavery and segregation. Richard Land, former head of the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission, gives more information on the historic apology.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that the Baptists didn't even get around to opposing slaving until 1955, how is it that they changed their position at all? After all, as Rick Warren says in his interview with ABC's Jake Tapper yesterday, "I just know what the Bible says."

No you don't, Rick.

Warren's fellow Baptists "knew" that the Bible "said" slavery was a good thing. But now they say slavery is a bad thing. When did the Bible change? Or did Warren's Baptist brethren not know what the Bible said, and did they change their beliefs based on the culture around them, a culture that was no longer as racist as it was before? Bingo.

Bigots like Warren, and those bigots include Colin Powell, get confused when you talk about racism and slavery. Rather than explain the contradiction implicit in their comments, they like to simply dismiss the comparison with a "race isn't the same thing as sexual orientation." Fine, then leave sexual orientation out of it. Why was it okay for the Baptist church to accomodate the culture on slavery and racism?  And along those same lines, if the Pope is so infallible, why did he get Galileo wrong? Read the rest of this post...

Amsterdam’s chief rabbi suspended for saying gays can be "healed"

Some took that to mean that gays are diseased. And in Amsterdam, like Europe at large, there's a bit of a history with the notion of demonizing an entire class of human beings as biologically inferior. As you can imagine, it doesn't go over real well in more civilized circles.

The chief rabbi, Aryeh Ralbag, who was born in the US (big surprise there), is now parroting other extreme-right American political propaganda, such as the notion that Amsterdam's Jewish community is now being "intolerant" of his intolerance.  The religious right has long believed that only they are permitted freedom of speech.  Amsterdam's Jewish community is apparently not permitted the same freedom to respond, which they just did by removing the man (temporarily, at least).

One more thing. The rabbi is claiming the Torah says gays can be cured. Which is really neat, since the notion of homosexuality as a thing, and gays as a people, didn't even come around until 100 years ago or so. Amazing how 2,000 years ago they were already aware of a lie the religious right only cooked up a couple of decades ago.

Kudos to Amsterdam's Jewish community for taking a stand for human rights, and for recognizing how obscene it is for anyone, let alone a religious leader, to adopt prejudice and bigotry in the hometown of Anne Frank, no less. Read the rest of this post...

Julia Sugarbaker vs Michele Bachmann

Not gay, but gay icon.


(h/t Bilerico) Read the rest of this post...

Pat Robertson: God will smite America if we try to stop the torture and murder of gays

Yeah, cuz that's what God is really about: promoting the torture and murder of gay and trans people around the world.  (That is the new Obama policy, to use our foreign policy to help promote the human rights of gay and trans people being tortured, imprisoned and murdered simply for who they are.)  The media need to ask Robertson (and Rick Perry) why he's favor in torturing, imprisoning and murdering gay people simply because they're gay.

Speaking of smiting, Pat Robertson better hope that the day he tries to enter heaven someone yells "duck!"

Read the rest of this post...

Evangelical bigots threaten to leave Church of Scotland over gay ordinations

What would Jesus do? Side with the downtrodden or those who trod on them? It's an easy answer. From the Guardian:

The Church of Scotland is braced for mass resignations over moves to allow the ordination of gay ministers, with up to 150 conservative and evangelical ministers threatening to quit, the Guardian can reveal.

The rebellion began after the Church of Scotland became the first major presbyterian church in the world to allow openly gay and lesbian ministers to take up parishes at its general assembly in May, despite evidence that 20% of its elders and office-bearers could leave in protest.

Let them go. In the early church, the really early church, people were willing to die for their beliefs, and did (including one particularly famous guy). The threat of a group of bigots taking their marbles and going home pales in comparison. Read the rest of this post...

Presbyterian church ordains first gay man as minister

Reuters via TowleRoad:

Scott Anderson, 56, was ordained minister at the Covenant Presbyterian Church in front of a jubilant congregation...

...Anderson, who years ago had been rejected by members of his congregation at the Bethany Presbyterian Church in Sacramento, California, left the ministry in 1990. He has been with his partner, Ian MacAllister, for 20 years.

...Since leaving the ministry, Anderson had remained active in the church. He began the process of returning to the ministry five years ago. The Presbyterian Church in July changed its constitution to allow openly gay and lesbian ministers.

Read the rest of this post...

Brad Pitt on gay marriage and religion

Parade via TowleRoad:

He also had questions about same-sex marriage:

“What are you so afraid of? That’s my question. Gay people getting married? What is so scary about that? It’s complicated. You grow up in a religion like that and you try to pray the gay away. I feel sadness for people like that. This is where people start short-circuiting—instead of being brave and questioning their beliefs, they are afraid and feel that they have to defend them.

“I don’t mind a world with religion in it. There are some beautiful tenets within all religions. What I get hot about is when they start dictating how other people must live. People suffer because of it. They are spreading misery.

On the continuing battle for equality:

“Can you believe that we’re still fighting for equality in America? To be against marriage for everyone is utter discrimination. I feel strongly about that because if equality of marriage doesn’t happen now, the next generation will have to deal with it.

“It is an amazing thing that New York has finally gotten same-sex marriage. But the real problem is that the federal government hides behind states on this issue. It is blatant, ugly bigotry, and the federal government shouldn’t be doing that. You’re denying some Americans the right that all Americans have, to live their lives as they choose.

Read the rest of this post...