Originally posted by teknotexan
If RDPs are legally recognized as a bonafide union, guaranteeing both partners all the rights afforded to a married couple, then why change the definition? It this only a matter of linguistics?
I really don't agree that Domestic Partnerships guarantee the same rights as Marriage, however. For one thing, if an individual insures their same-sex partner under a "family" policy at work, the benefit is added to the primary insured's gross taxable income. If the same couple were married, this is not the case.
At least that's the way it was at my old company...they passed it off as Federal IRS regulations, and there was no way around it. So, considering this issue alone, Domestic Partners would take home less in their paychecks since they can't be married. I'm sure there are other differences as well, it's all in the fine print...
teknotexan
quote:
Originally posted by gehzumteufel
If this was the case, McDonalds would not have lost in a "hot coffee" lawsuit. Don't pose stupid questions like this. You should know that people will try to skirt the law in any way possible.
Also, the thing about RDPs granting the same exact as marriage is not true in every state, although it is the same in California as of 2005.
The driver was held liable for 20% of her injuries in the case, and the cup was not labeled on it's lid nor was it properly insulated for the tempertures that the coffee maker would dispense coffee at. I haven't read anything quality you've added to this discussion except blanket statements and generalities that are offensive to any person of faith.
quote:
Originally posted by gehzumteufel
You can't teach a dumb dog new tricks. Religious people are the dumb dogs for the most part. They think they are all right, and that because their god said so, that everyone should be forced to believe as them.
This has nothing to do with a 14th Amendment issues, ok? If you can't simply discuss an issue, piss off. Anyways...
Skirt the law indeed! You proved my point precisely! The Prop. 8 is only in California, and as you stated RDP's are regarded the same as marriages since 2005! Love and commitment aside, along with "teaching kids what is right", I'm looking at it from a legal vantage point. If from 2005 on in California RDP's are legally treated the same as marriages, and this is a CA Proposition, then please tell me how anyone can deliver a non-offensive, non-judgemental, non-condescending and convincing argument that this is absolutely necessary to ensure the rights of gay couples are guaranteed?! SO far there's nothing but religion bashing and name calling on this thread.
bas
quote:
Originally posted by teknotexan
SO far there's nothing but religion bashing and name calling on this thread.
Well you're from Texas so you're stupid and probably smelly.
Smelly.
bas
Also:
in2muzikk
quote:
Originally posted by in2muzikk
For one thing, if an individual insures their same-sex partner under a "family" policy at work, the benefit is added to the primary insured's gross taxable income. If the same couple were married, this is not the case.
At least that's the way it was at my old company...they passed it off as Federal IRS regulations, and there was no way around it. So, considering this issue alone, Domestic Partners would take home less in their paychecks since they can't be married. I'm sure there are other differences as well, it's all in the fine print...
Here's an article that backs my point up...domestic partners must pay taxes on the employer paid portion (typically 80%) of their health insurance premiums, but married couples do not. In the example below, that amounted to $1,800 per year.
So for everyone who believes that domestic partners have exactly the same benefits as married couples, then all married couples should pay $1,800 more in taxes for their health insurance too, no? Think about it, if you had to take out your checkbook now and pay the IRS for that, then that's the only way things would be "equal" on this one of many issues that separate domestic partnerships from marriages.
Surprise: taxes due for domestic partner workplace benefits
A story published today in the Washington Post reports that many employees are surprised to learn that employers must withhold taxes from most employees who receive health and other benefits for their domestic partners.
For example, consider Dan Jessup who in early 2004 added his partner of two years to his health insurance, as his employer, the big Wall Street firm J.P. Morgan, allows.
For more than a decade, a focus of gay rights groups and other activists has been persuading employers to offer health insurance and other benefits to the domestic partners of unmarried employees. And Jessup was pleased that his employer was among those that did.
Employer-provided group insurance "was a great plus for us because he is a self-employed writer and content developer" and J.P. Morgan's coverage "was much cheaper than what he could get on his own," Jessup said of partner Bob Chenoweth.
But there was shock in store for the 39-year-old worker in Morgan's commercial banking division in Indianapolis: His taxes took a big jump.
"Something I didn't understand at the time was how much the taxes would be. I was very surprised when I started doing my taxes" this spring, he said.
As an increasing number of employers make health care coverage available, unmarried workers are finding that as one barrier falls, another remains standing: taxes.
Whether in same-sex or heterosexual unmarried unions, employees who take advantage of health care coverage for their partners are stuck with tax bills for the benefits.
Under federal law, any portion of an employer-paid insurance premium that goes for coverage for a domestic partner is treated as taxable income to the employee. The employee also may not make any payments for partner coverage, such as premiums under a "cafeteria" benefit plan, with pretax dollars.
The rules apply whether an employer buys medical coverage from an insurance company or whether it "self-insures" and allocates part of the costs to the worker, said Randall Abbott of the Boston office of Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a benefits consulting firm.
"Regardless, it's the employer portion of that premium. If the employer is paying 80 percent, that's what the employee is taxed on. The employer withholds taxes on it, and it is reported as income on the employee's W-2" wage reporting form, Abbott said.
Rising medical costs have added to the pain this year, Jessup said. In January of this year, as health care costs to the firm increased, taxes increased proportionately.
"My taxes went up $150 a month. That's something I hadn't planned for," he said of the reduction in his paycheck caused by additional withholding.
Employers often blame the Internal Revenue Service for the tax, but the rules were written into law by Congress.
And because it is federal law, there are other consequences. One is that employers are not required to offer COBRA benefits -- which allow employees to stay on their employers' plans temporarily after they leave their jobs -- for domestic partners.
The taxes are the result of the interaction of several laws.
First, employer-paid health insurance is tax-free only for employees, their spouses and dependents. "A man and a woman who have not officially gotten married are in the same boat," said Christopher Colwell of the accounting firm BDO Seidman LLP.
Opposite-sex couples, of course, have the option of getting married. Except in Massachusetts, same-sex couples do not. Even if they did, it wouldn't help with the tax treatment.
The Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."
It also stipulates that "spouse" refers "only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." The law requires that both these definitions be used "in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress."
Thus, same-sex couples, no matter what the states do, will remain unable to get federal-tax-free health insurance for one partner through the other's employer. A 1997 study by the General Accounting Office (now known as the Government Accountability Office) found 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor. They range from the obvious, such as those concerning joint tax returns, to the obscure but potentially important for certain individuals, such as in determining who gets life insurance proceeds when a federal government worker dies without specifying a beneficiary.
For many couples, the most immediate and painful impact is on health insurance.
While most workers can afford to pay the taxes -- or will struggle to do so because the advantage of employer-paid plans is so great -- some cannot.
It is a "decision people have to make," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian rights advocacy group here. At the same time, he said, it's a decision society also should face: "What you have to factor in is the cost of the uninsured . . . the long-term cost of the uninsured partner of the person who makes that tough decision" to forgo coverage because of the taxes.
And those who get sick and are without insurance are likely to end up on some form of public assistance, such as Medicaid.
Solmonese said federal policy runs increasingly counter to what many employers are doing. "They see this not just as an issue of workplace equity but, for a whole range of reasons, [as] something that makes a lot of sense," he said.
Forty to 45 percent of the Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits, Abbott said. Among all large employers, those with more than 1,000 workers, the figure is about 30 percent, he said.
Among all businesses, "the number drops to 15 to 20 percent because many small businesses either simply can't afford the benefit" or their owners may object for personal reasons, he said.
Early on, there was "enormous concern that including same-sex partners would create crippling costs," Abbott said. "That has proven not to be the case. Generally, what we have found is the cost of domestic partner benefits has been nominal," about the same for same-sex and a little higher for opposite-sex unmarried partners as for spouses. Domestic partner benefits can escape tax if the non-employee partner can qualify as the employee partner's dependent. Children of the non-employee partner may also qualify this way.
To qualify, the partners must, among other things, live together, and the employee partner must provide more than half the non-employee's support. Some employers provide worksheets for employees to help figure out if they qualify.
For many couples, "it's difficult to meet that definition of dependent," Colwell said.
Jessup has considered claiming Chenoweth as a dependent but hasn't tried it.
"The tax laws are confusing. We need to talk to specialists," Jessup said. "We don't understand what that would do to his tax situation. He's self-employed -- how is that going to impact his business? It's complex and somewhat overwhelming."
There have been efforts in Congress to ease the tax treatment of health insurance for domestic partners, but they have stalled. Sens. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) plan to reintroduce legislation that would bring the treatment more in line with that of married couples.
Jessup and others at J.P. Morgan say they appreciate what the firm has done for them. A company spokesman noted that J.P. Morgan has provided domestic partner benefits since 1994 and was the first Wall Street firm to do so.
But even for investment bankers, the tax hit is not negligible.
Five years ago, when Laureen Callo's partner decided to leave J.P. Morgan and go back to graduate school, Callo added her as a domestic partner.
"It's much more affordable" than other options they looked at, but it resulted in $5,000 a year in additional taxable income. "In the 35 percent tax bracket . . . you are talking about $1,800 a year in tax saving" they would have been allowed if they were married, Callo said. "Over five or six years, that's not small change."
selfEvolution
On my "death bed" I for one will not be praying to an invisible fairy-tale god invented by ancient people who borrowed heavily from the more ancient Syrians. Older gods who coincidentally also had sons born of virgin births and who also created "world-wide floods" and other such genocidal atrocities. A god that is "all-knowing", "all-powerful" and "all-loving" is a contradiction in terms if he has to command someone to kill the "first born of every household" because of his own insecurities. Further, a god who "knew" the mess that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, George Bush and others of their ilk would do with their "god-given" "free will" is not the definition of a god, but of a monster. If I was an "all-loving" and "all powerful" god I would have done a much better job - and almost any third-grader could have as well. So much for the fairy-tale notion of "god".
Back to the topic at hand: Non-heteorosexual marriage. I use the term non-heterosexual as a respectful short-cut to encapsulate many important groups who the California Sumpreme Court's decision gave greater freedom and equality to: Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgendered, intersexed (those born or "made by the all-creator" with both male and female organs) - Who do the religious extremists suggest intersexed people have the right to marry since their bisexuality is not of their own "free will"?
If anyone wanted to debate others about non-heterosexual marriage and the California Supreme Court, I would advise that they begin by noting that three of the four California Justices who joined the majority decision in favor of this Constitutional equality are considered "conservative" and were appointed by Republican governors. I would do this because, self-proclaimed "Christians" as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Dinesh D'Souza prove, who subscribe to religious extremism yet who habitually lie, will be the ones yelling the loudest and longest about "activist judges supporting gay marriage" and "marriage is for only procreation".
The California Supreme Court worked exactly as it was supposed to when discriminatory laws are put on the books. It heard expert testimony from all sides, studied the effects of gay marriage in Massachusetts and other countries, and *weighed the evidence fairly*. Something that the "tyranny of the majority" either does not have the time or the will to do. Many so-called "Christians" will not display either the intellectual honesty nor time to do likewise before bashing the same Supreme Court who ruled in the 1950s that bashing interracial marriages was unconstitutional.
If Dinesh D'Souza, a physically dark person of a "different race" had been dating Ann Coulter in the South during the 50s he probably would have been lynched by white church-going Christians, as many others were for decades. A majority of them didn't want whites dating "people of color". In fact the so-called "Christian" white majority wanted people like Dinesh to sit in the back of the bus until the so-called "activist" judges ruled that the "law of the land" (segregation) was unconstitutional.
If individuals in "cultural minority groups" have a problem with the comparison of their struggles with the struggles of millions of non-heterosexual minorities, then they should look deeply into their own discrimination and prejudice, because in the true sense of a fair, civilized society people would be viewed as humans first, second and third, as individuals, as families and as friends.
The good news is that most people can learn and grow, and change their subscriptions when they finally realize that they may have been subscribing to erroneous magazines all along. On the Oprah Winfrey show I once witnessed a self-proclaimed "KKK grand dragon" change her bigotry and renounce her organization when presented with the realities from a black person who's personal life had nothing to to with her own.
An equally important issue for me is how America will be viewed now and in the future by the rest of the civilized world. How this country will be seen by those seeking to escape the tyranny from the emotional prejudices of majorities. If this country, often called the "greatest in the world", would *not* offer the homage of equality and tolerance to all consenting adults, then what message would that send to leaders of tyranny the world over, where gay people are often tortured, imprisoned and beaten to death?
The soul of tolerance is looking at us through the eyes of the world, and tolerance cannot like what it sees when reading the intolerance from Dinesh and his supporters, who take away their own focus from more important, Christ-affirming priorities - helping the weak, the poor and the powerless. Instead, millions who subscribe to extremism will spend millions of collective hours doing quite the opposite - collectively bashing non-heterosexuals and their Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. Part of that "pursuit of happiness" means being viewed or at least treated fairly as societal *equals* based on individual talents and character, not who they happen to love or want to be with.
Those who subscribe to religious extremism will defile the very god they pretend to believe in, and behave like anything but Christ-like as they bare false witness to support their prejudices. Here is but ten of a long list of mass hypocrisies, as extremisms focuses not on its own redemption, but bashing other people with negative stereotypes while trying to bash minority rights into the ground:
1.) The Judicial branch worked exactly as it was supposed to when discriminatory laws are put on the books between two consenting adults. The court protected the minority from the tyranny of the majority, just as it protected interracial marriage from the will of the majority in the 1950s. Most people I know who subscribe to religious extremism were against interracial marriage, citing the bible as cover for their hatred. Yet, most so-called "Christians" I know can't even remember half of the Ten Commandments, none of which mentions homosexuality, but one of which states that we should "NOT work on the Sabbath". If we're going to deny two consenting adults the equal right to marry based on an ancient book of fairy tales, then we may as well deny rights for the millions of people who "WORK on the Sabbath" - and the ones who employee them by buying at their work - fast food places, skating rinks, ball games, theaters, malls, etc.
2.) In a democracy that respects equality, the national and state constitutions are designed to protect minorities such as non-heterosexuals from the ignorance and emotional prejudices of the majority. When the majority tries to ram their religious and/or anti non-heterosexual beliefs down the throats of the world to support their pet prejudices, the Supreme Court has to listen to rational debate. The Supreme Court protects both minority religions and minorities of all types including the minority sexual orientations. The Supreme Court is essentially "we the people" being a branch of government to keep the legislature in check when it attempts to make prejudicial, unconstitutional laws.
3.) The California Supreme Court heard hours of rational argument and evidence and deliberated on the testimonies for months after considering both pro-gay-marriage and anti-gay-marriage sides. The anti-gay-marriage proponents were asked over and over to give a compelling arguments that would show that gay marriage somehow injures anyone or injures marriage as we know it. They could not come up with a compelling arguments even though several "experts" were given the opportunity. For those of us who watch CSPAN when it comes to important human-rights legislation, all we heard was their prejudices and their unfounded homophobia.
4.) The bible mentions "gluttony" far more as an "abomination" than it does homosexuality. How many gluttonous Christians do we know? Some would say Jerry Falwell was "gluttonous". According to his doctors, Falwell's excess weight led to an early death from congestive heart failure at age seventy-three. That's not exactly "death age" these days. My relatively fit grandparents and Great-Aunts either lived pass ninety or are currently alive and well in their nineties. Falwell, ignoring his calling to be Christlike and "judge not less you be judged" is the same person who called non-heterosexual Ellen DeGeneres, "Ellen Degenerate". Falwell is just one of millions during this decade who subscribed to religious extremism until the end of their lives, often ending because of obesity. Isn't their body their god's temple as mentioned in their bible?
5.) There are even intersexed people found in all cultures - people BORN with BOTH male and female organs - who do the lying Christians suggest *they* have the right marry? God, who allegedly is the "all-knowing all-creator" by definition, "created" different sexual orientations as found in millions of people in all cultures throughout history.
6.) Marriage is not just for "pro-creation". The notion that non-heterosexual marriage will somehow disrupt population growth is ridiculous. To the contrary, populations in areas where gay marriage is allowed have continued to grow unabated, with teenage pregnancy continuing to run riot. There are millions of couples who either cannot or will not have children in an already growing and overpopulated world where famine and clean water shortages amounting to 1.5 million deaths of children each year. Millions more cannot conceive after fifty years of age, but engage in active sex lives and even cheat on their spouses regardless of religiosity or political party. There are millions of more "known as "nuns" and "priests" who will also not have children.
7.) Alexander The Great was bisexual, but preferred men, and many famous army generals consider him to be the greatest general of all times. The Greek culture prospered for centuries until Christianity was adopted by the Romans and then we saw the ushering in of the dark ages, the inquisition and witch hunts. Many non-Christians, non-heterosexuals or those who were biologically different in any way, were burned at the stake or tortured and killed "in the name of god". Likewise the Christian/Catholic followers of Hitler, who mentioned himself as "God's provenance" and had written many pro-Christianity statements in Mein Kamf, engaged in mass wholesale murder of minorities.
Fortunately, some people who subscribe to Christianity did not listen to Hitler at great risk to themselves, but unfortunately they were too few and too far between. More fortunately, most Christians I know think that the insecurities of the anti-gay-marriage advocates are as fallacious and distorted as Hitler's ever were. I've never read of a single account of Hitler himself directly killing a Jew nor a non-heterosexual with his bare hands, but he did so cowardly through his denouncements to all of his loyal followers, many of whom never renounced their religion and proceeded about their merry ways, before and after the war, to their church every week. We must also remember that it takes millions of man-hours from once-moral people to commit genocide against millions of others simply because they were "different".
8.) Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, life-long advocate of freedom and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, stated: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." Gay marriage between two consenting adults was not proven, and has never been proven, to be any more harmful or injurious to any other person than heterosexual marriage. If anything, the most injurious causes of heterosexual divorce come from heterosexuals themselves *One* of the causes of divorce is cheating, often listed as irreconcilable differences, "to save the couple from public embarrassment". With nearly a 50% divorce rate among "Christians" surely "faith" in their god is not *always* stronger than the immediate need for gratification and/or health considerations. If so-called "Christians" are serious about "defending" marriage, they would look at the *real* causes of the weakening of the institution instead of manufacturing excuses to support their biases, prejudices, hatred and "disgust" all of which are attributes born of intolerance, inexperience, and stereotyping while judging an entire group of millions in the minority, instead of educating themselves about the individuals within each group. Our Constitution was designed to protect all people from those who cannot protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority.
9.) Cheating and divorces continue decade after decade, no matter how many prayers have been uttered by preachers and priests, family and friends, to keep the blessed couples together. Studies conducted by Christian organizations found that the divorce rate is actually higher among Christian Fundamentalist than it is among atheists. Divorce rates are higher in the mid south, where non-heterosexuals are relatively closeted, than divorce rates in larger cities where non-heterosexuality is more open and more obvious. I'm not drawing a correlation here, but it does support the fact that the visibility of non-heterosexuals certainly does not harm heterosexual marriage. If a marriage is ever hurt by such exterior matters, then it couldn't have been a very strong marriage to begin with.
10.) Self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Bill O'Reilly used misleading and irrational fear-mongering by stating "gay marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying animals." It hasn't in five countries where it's legal, nor in Massachusetts, which was the basis for the California Supreme Court's decision -a conservative court that actually weighed the evidence. It is typical of those using fear-bating instead of facts to limit freedom and equality. This deserves further elaboration, because this is not about Bill O'Reilly. It's about the millions of his ilk, the angry white male Limbaugh-type self-proclaimed "dittoheads" and their hypocrisy and thoughtless talking points such as "activist judges" with Bill O'Reilly just being a more visible example.
Those who subscribe to religious extremism wonder often why their god hasn't listened to their prayers for the economy to improve or for the war to be won (ironic, as the bible states Jesus is the "prince of peace"). They might find it more patriotic and Christ-like to focus on much more important issues than their paranoid fear of what really "marriage" should be about. Every hour spent verbally bashing non-heterosexuals or trying to suppress their "right to the pursuit of equal happiness is an hour spent away from many more deadly-serious priorities. They seem to skirt their the calling of Christ (who never mentioned homosexuality -it's only in the antiquated "old" testament) when they could be educating others by putting a focus on:
Human rights and prejudice. Which I hope I have done with this post, knowing I have a lot more to learn myself.
Teenage pregnancy among Christians (including Sarah Palin's on daughter) child abuse and sexual abuse, ironically made more visible by religious extremism in Texas earlier this year.
National Security by focusing on Afghanistan instead of Iraq. - Nearly twice as many of our citizens have now died in Iraq than during 9-11.
Global Warming, which even a growing list of Republican Leaders are admitting does exist and can be fixed if we put effort into it.
Pollution
Overpopulation
Corrupt politicians
Corrupt corporations
Lack of universal Health Care
Bigotry and hate
Fascism & unscientific propaganda spread as "fact".
When you increase a person's constitutional right to happiness, you increase the world's happiness in total. Marriage may not be your idea of happiness, but for millions of other people the world over, it is. Here is a chance for California to be a shining example for equality and the tolerance of diversity instead of an example of intolerance and bigotry . Non-heterosexual marriage neither threatens marriage nor procreation. No matter how many get married, it will not stop us bisexuals and heterosexuals from making love like crazed weasels and reproducing like bunnies.
P.S. Not all gay guys have to shave their butts - ever dated Asians? And not all gay sex is about anal sex - I know plenty of gay guys who only do oral and mutual-jackoff or who Masturbate proudly. So in the interest of health and sanity, let's all masturbateProudly because if you don't, someone else will. www.masturbateProudly.org
teknotexan
OMG, thank you so much for your post in2muzikk!! I knew that the tax benefits are not equal regarding RDP's and married couples, which makes one of the only points in this issue that is devoid of religious opinions and society's steroetypes. Thanks for bring up a valid argument! Unfortunately, I cannot find any more convincing points besides this one. I do not like the fact that two people who love each other, living together in a commited relationship, will be financially or legally treated different from other couples. This issue, being a nation wide issue, can become a 14th Amendment case in the future if challenged.
If I were to not care about equality, then I wouldn't care nor vote. But I guess I really do. I'm voting NO on Prop. 8!
selfEvolution
Thanks, teknotexan, for sounding a note for tolerance and equality. I too will be voting "NO" on Prop 8. For the record, I don't care which of the 3,000+ gods people choose to believe in - the thousands of religious sects all have only one major thing in common - they each think that their version of a "creator" is the only correct one. I only take issue when they assert their beliefs as absolute certainties to booster their pet prejudices and fears. Beliefs are not facts or else they would not be called "faith" - and all too often it is blind faith, blinded by hate or intolerance of those different from themselves.
gehzumteufel
quote:
Originally posted by teknotexan
The driver was held liable for 20% of her injuries in the case, and the cup was not labeled on it's lid nor was it properly insulated for the tempertures that the coffee maker would dispense coffee at.
Don't be ing stupid. It does not matter if it was labeled hot or not. Coffee from a ing coffee pot will be hot. Plain and simple. That is like saying a ing curling iron wasn't labeled as hot. Are you that ing dense?...oh wait. It is quite obvious you are. You do realize warning labels are for ing idiots right? Because people that have common sense know not to iron your clothes while wearing them, or not to stick curling irons into any orifice while hot, or to stick hot coffee between their legs and expect it to be cold. You see my point? I am sure you won't since you are a dense idiot.
quote:
This has nothing to do with a 14th Amendment issues, ok? If you can't simply discuss an issue, piss off. Anyways...
Skirt the law indeed! You proved my point precisely! The Prop. 8 is only in California, and as you stated RDP's are regarded the same as marriages since 2005! Love and commitment aside, along with "teaching kids what is right", I'm looking at it from a legal vantage point. If from 2005 on in California RDP's are legally treated the same as marriages, and this is a CA Proposition, then please tell me how anyone can deliver a non-offensive, non-judgemental, non-condescending and convincing argument that this is absolutely necessary to ensure the rights of gay couples are guaranteed?! SO far there's nothing but religion bashing and name calling on this thread.
You are ing dumb. Prop 8 and similar things are not only in California. You should read up. Most other states have also passed similar state constitution or statutory laws that ban it. Most of the ones that have, are states that are more religious.
Also, how is it NOT a 14th amendment issue? You are making same-sex couples no longer equal.
Furthermore, how are we making it out to be religious bashing? We are just stating the facts. Religious groups are the ones MOST involved. Christians (this includes Catholics as they are Christian) and LDS aka Mormons (also Christian) alike. The LDS church and the Catholic church are the 2 wealthiest religions in the world, and therefore can throw as much money at this as they choose. I am convinced that you are part of this religious right. No one would be so set on bashing others for asking the religious people to respect others views and not force them to go with their views because of their religion.
