Comments on: The Inevitable Evolution of Love

By: dervala

dervala — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:51:13 +0000

:-)

We’ll take what we can get, Jack.

Happy new year, everybody. Thanks so much for stopping by and for leaving comments.

By: Jack Dalton

Jack Dalton — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:51:33 +0000

Don’t knock ‘underwhelming’… it’s often the only thing that keeps us going! Every Good Wish for 2009.

By: JerryT

JerryT — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:50:20 +0000

“Anonymity matters to me.” You’re right. Sometimes we don’t know until we reach the pressure point then it drowns us.

By: Bruce Oksol

Bruce Oksol — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:57:57 +0000

Both sides want to keep this issue out front. If they did not, it could be solved immediately. This is a “church vs state” issue and the constitutional mandate of separateness applies. Marriage is an event sanctified/recognized/instituted by the church. A civil union is a legality recognized/instituted by the state. The states should allow civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities regardless of whom one is married to, and those who want to be married in a church that will marry them should be allowed to.

No, there is more going on here than a simple “yes/no” or “up/down” vote on same-sex marriage. Both sides want this to stay on the front burner or they lose their sense of importance.

By: matt

matt — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:31:09 +0000

“could get marr[y]”

[Thanks, Matt!—Ed.]

By: John Cowan

John Cowan — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:14:28 +0000

“It’s never been a requirement before.”

“That’s what it’s time means.”