Or perhaps you are broke because you think that $100,000 might be nothing at some point of income level. Who has done more for the poor, one of these multimillionaires giving "nothing", or you?

There are people on the right that hate just as much as those on the left, but the main stream of the right views the left as uninformed, ignorant, and in need of enlightening. The main stream of the left views the right as evil, racists, and hatemongers.

Unfair?!? I dont even know what that means. None of the families/groups that are being helped are entitled to the money that they are being given. It is a private citizen that honestly earned/worked for the money they have and are freely choosing to give that money to somebody/group that did not earn/work for it. I certainly dont thing that any of them are giving away money to help the economy, nor do they have the obligation to.

"Today's system is a zero-sum game, in which for one person to gain, another must lose."

This is not true, in a free trade where there is no force, deception or coercion each party is trading something of value for something that they value more and is always a win-win transaction.

What other reason would there be?

More meaningful to you or to them? It seamed pretty meaningful to them. Also who do you think makes more money in the deal, the participants or the network? I am more likely to make an effort to patronize a business that is attempting to do good, and it is helpful to know who that is.

Does it really matter whether they did it for the publicity or not? Does the fact that there was a personal benefit in doing this make the money given less spendable or effective? I personally think that it would have had a greater long term effect for the people of the area if they had taken that $300,000 and opened one of his restaurants in the area to employ some of those out of work in the area. I have seen in personal experience that handing unearned money/things out to people usually is not the most effective way of helping. For example, the house that the show Extreme Makeover Home Edition did here in Austin was recently foreclosed on because after the show paid off their existing mortgage and built the new house, the family took out a $400,000 mortgage on the new house that was built and defaulted on the loan.

"> -And you would of course include polygamous and
> incestuous relationships in this as well, right?

Of course not, and your statement of that question seems to
indicate that you are not too serious about the question."

-I thought that the issue was love and equality. It seems pretty arbitrary to me to say that marriage is only between one man and one woman, or one man and one man, or one woman an one woman, but there are some exceptions to this. You are redrawing the same line we have drawn, only in a different place.

> -OK, how about we use marriage as defined over the las
> 200+ years in US law as the standard for marriage.

"It is the effect on people, not the tradition that makes or
breaks the case ... not the arbitrary word definition. For
instance there are implications in the world man used to
refer to both men and women that are prejudicial because
of the nature of the word. I do not know the effect on
people but languages can affect the way people think."

-It sounds as if you think that the word marriage as is currently defined is a dirty word, it is offensive and naughty. Maybe kind of like the N- word or any other racial epithet, I would certainly say these words are prejudicial. Except, wait a minute, the people that are using it to describe themselves like to be called it. Marriage is not designed to exclude somebody, it is used to describe the committed relationship between a man and a woman, and is recognized by law as being so. If you want a word to describe another type of committed relationship, go for it.

--

"Jason, I did not say you cannot think, only that your thinking
is limited by how freely you can speculate and what limits
you feel by your peer group - in this case Mormons. I did not
make a judgement about you, I asked you how you felt about
the question. Obviously, you believe you are as free to inquire
in these questions as everyone else. So, what would happen
if you disagreed with your Mormon group."

-Maybe you could ask Harry Reid, or Steve Youngs wife. You have seen in this post that I have a reason that I believe what I believe, that is independent from the basic statements given by the church. I have not used religious or biblical arguments to make my points, and yet here you are again trying to say that there is no way I could possible come to the conclusions that I do without having my mind bent by my church.

"In the case of Catholics they are ostrasized in some cases. For
instance, John Kerry, was refused communion for supporting
the abortion law as it is in the US. I don't like that or think it
is right, but I do not see a way to interfere within a religious
group, which is why I do not like religious groups, at least when
they are activist."

-I dont defend the catholic church. But if the catholic church actually is the true church, and God actually has told them that abortion is immoral, would it not behoove the church to ensure that its members know the seriousness of the action? If they did not would it not be an affront to God?

"In terms of God's desire, I don't use any feeling or special insight
I might feel about God to infer God's desire for humans. I think
God is so far about humans that it is like an ant trying to understand
the human world. I have things that occur to me, but I do not seek
to freeze those ideas of seek out ideas that have been frozen and
interpretted to understand how to behave of think in the world. Human
beings are figuring that out for themselves as history unfolds, and it
involves resolving some of the differences betweens different
ideas of God and the universe."

-You do not believe that God wants us to behave or think in any particular way?

"I think, and the California Supreme Court thinks that there is
a civil rights issue here. Since I have heard the argument, I will
continue to believe that is a correct interpretation of the way
the Constitution works, even if the US Supreme Court rules
against it."

-So regardless of the law you will believe what you believe. Ok, that is your right.

"The problem with this is the "separate but equal" problem
that was suggested with blacks. The result is not the same
unless the law specifies the same rights."

-There are no individual rights being denied in the current case with marriage. Which was not the case in the "Separate but equal laws". No one is being told they cannot drink out of the same drinking fountain as another.

"I could just as well say - let the marriages performed by
the Mormon church be heterosexual in nature and you
can maintain your intolerance inside of your own church
and explain to the gay Mormons why you have to
discriminate against them."

-Your assumption that somebody is being discriminated against is false. What individual right is being denied?

> -This may be but it is certainly not building any good will
> between the minority seeking the redefinition and the
> large majority of Americans.

The existence of the KKK shows that freeing black people
did not result in much goodwill from some whites either,
it does not mean that it was incorrect to do that.

"I do not see any rational argument why not, except that it goes
against some people's aesthetic notions of the world - ie. religious
and moral beliefs. I think those beliefs are incompatible with a
free and equal society."

-And you would of course include polygamous and incestuous relationships in this as well, right?

"Further, civil unions do not give couples the same rights as marriage.
In cases where gay couples have together and one dies, many legal
challenges on wills have been overturned in favor of even distant
family members when the partner is specified in the will as the
beneficiary. I actually found this out today talking to a friend of mine
whose daughter is gay."

-So fix that in the law, rather than try to change the definition of a word that is obviously important to a majority of Americans.

"This whole set of problems disappears and the legality is simplified
country-wide when marriage is not defined in limiting terms."

-This may be but it is certainly not building any good will between the minority seeking the redefinition and the large majority of Americans.

"OK, I perceived your post as calling those who disagree with you intolerant,
based on the actions you found rude while you claimed the moral high
ground. That always bothers me no matter who does it, left or right."

-Show me where what I have said in my post is not true on any issue of the day.

"You say words mean something, but as I have already proven, and you
ignored it, the concept of marriage, as most words have changed and
evolved, and will continue to.

You are wrong to say that the word marriage has one definition such
as the word "chair". That makes your argument invalid. Marriage if
you look at the history used to be a virtual sale of a woman from one
family to another to create a political bond. It was also as I mentioned
defined as polygamy in the early Mormon church, which changed as
well."

-OK, how about we use marriage as defined over the last 200+ years in US law as the standard for marriage.

"That is an interesting statement. The law is a rational thing, based
on precedent and legal logic. How do you then see the relationship of
your church to the law, and are you then outside and unbound by
secular law in this country. For instance, do you condone the actions
of those who would murder a doctor for performing abortion?"

-The true gospel of Jesus Christ does not conflict with true principles. As long as the law follows true principles there would not be any conflict with any law secular or not. The Declaration was written as a statement of principles and the Constitution was written to protect "Natural Rights" which are rights that exist outside of government control. There is no faithful Mormon or any mainstream christian that would condone murder for any reason. The law should not be based on "precident" or "legal logic". The law should conform to the proper role of government which is to protect natural rights, and ensure the maximum amount of individual freedom possible.

"I think it is you that is playing games with definitions."

-Definitions are definitions, I am not the one trying to change anything here.

"I said that word meanings change. I said that in order to expand legal rights
fairly and equally that it makes sense to allow gays to marry."

-What legal rights are being denied?

"I also drew a distinction between Christians, that have a lineage
of European descent from Mormon that I understand not to have
this descent."

-Are you saying that we are not Christians because the church originated in the Americas or because we dont accept the Nicene creed as gospel truth?

"By playing this word game, you are simply engaging in marketing
that tries to associate Mormon with Christian making Mormon more
palatable to people who do not know the difference."

-I am not playing anything, I was assuming that the definition of Christian was a belief in and worship of Christ within the Church. Obviously you are working off a different definition of Christian.

"In other words there are important differences in church dogma that just
disappear when you lump Mormons as Christians. I see this as
an effort for Mormons to become more mainstream and to
capitalize on joining the religious right."

-Mormons do not seek to be mainstream, There are differences in doctrine. Each person that is baptized has to receive a set of discussions that include these differences. We are not trying to deceive anybody about what we believe and practice. I am open to any discussion of any beliefs I have personally. The religious right certainly knows the differences that exist and demonstrate those at every chance.

"You don't know me. You are not even allowing yourself
to hear what I have to say without blocking it off with
sarcasm. I think this means that I am more open-
minded and willing to consider and digest facts over time
and sometimes change my mind."

-It must mean you are more open minded than me.

"I am guessing that you have to tow the line of your church,"

-I am an individual, and I tow nothing. Your assumption is again that I cant think for myself, and if I could I would obviously think like you.

"that entails keeping away from considering certain things, or
asking certain questions for the sake of being a good member
of the community."

-I am an open book, and willing to consider all points of view.

"Would you say that is true or not?"

-I would not.

"That has nothing to do with believing in God. I believe in God as well
and I believe that we humans here on Earth have to do much
better at getting along with each other than we have been."

-Your belief is that Gods desire is for humans to "get along"?

"To that end, making rights universal and simple, removing barriers
that allow people to control other people over what are
abitrary distinctions, is progress and helps people get along
more easily. It also removes opportunities for discrimination
and repression."

-Natural rights, individual rights should be protected at all costs. Group rights, when enumerated in law is the government playing favorites. There is no individual rights being denied in this instance, which was not the case with the Civil rights struggle and voting rights. Show me the rights in California being denied to anybody.

"I am not trying to repress any Mormons, by drawing a distinction
between Mormons and Christians. I am not trying to deny Mormons
anything. It is an interesting question though."

-We are not seeking recognition in a court of law to be recognized as Christian. If we were, what would be your position?

"I personally think that it such a mistake to not generalize marriage to
two people who are committed to each other because there is no non-
arbitrtary reason not to."

-So you believe that any consenting adult couple, no matter the make up should be allowed to marry.

"I see no evidence in any post here that anyone wants to discuss this
idea, this is a rephrase of your opinions justifying closed minds."

The intent of this post was not to discuss homosexual relationships.

"Then when you get disagreement, if you frame it right, you can call the
disagreement ignorance and intolerance and be justified and consistent
within your own group."

-Again the purpose of this post was not to discuss homosexual relationships. Ignorance of reasoning behind why a group or individual has chosen to stand on one side of this issue is ignorance. If you just brush aside the argument with contempt without considering why they are voting the way they vote it is ignorance. If you steamroll the opinions and and free will of the majority of voters with a panel of four judges, dont expect them to come back and vote for your side afterwords.

And it is the tyranny of the majority that is the problem here. Thankfully this is a small non-lethal issue, but nevertheless it is an example of arbitrary intolerance.

-If there was in this instance an example of individual rights being violated, I would agree with you here.

"Read this back and listen to yourself Jason. First you dismiss my point
with sarcasm and then use your warped logic to attack me personally."

-Your point was to tell everybody that if you oppose gay marriage your purpose is to deny human rights, which we are not, hate, which we do not, and denigrate, again we dont, and if you view the 60% plus, of the population that believes that marriage should stay defined as it always has been you must see this country in quite a poor light.

"What is your "rational" reason to deny marriage to gays?"

-Words mean something, if we didnt have standard definitions of words we would not be able to communicate with each other. We dont call a chair a table, even though it has four legs and a flat top like the table, and if we did want to start calling a chair a table I think that you would want to get everybody(at least a majority of people) on board for that change.

"I did not call you demons, noticed the quotes, as in you demonize gays."

-The purpose of the post, the church, prop 8 is not to demonize anybody.

"Secular human rights is a phrase I intend to indicate the rights of
human beings outside religious irrational beliefs that have no
rational existence except religious dogma."

-It is impossible for a religious person to be rational or have a rational belief system. You throw these things out as if they are fact, and all it does is validate my point, every time you do it.

"And your proof that the Church of Jesus Christ is Christian by the
name does not matter to me. As to lineage and dogma LDS is
well outside Christian tradition, whatever it calls itself and whoever
it proclaims to worship. I have heard a of the stories about
gold tablets and Jesus Christ coming to America."

-Do you not see the irony here? You are saying in one breath you have no right to maintain a definition of one word(marriage), but if you try to redefine this other word (Christianity,and this not even by law) you are you have no right to do this.

"As far as I can see cloaking intolerance behind the bible is an old trick to avoid having
to defend intolerance. Remember many slaveholders went to church
on Sundays."

-Where have I, even once in this post, used the bible, or any religious text to make my argument.

"I am not gay, and I am no longer a Christian,"

-Both of these are irrelevant to the conversation.

"but that does not mean I cannot have opinions on these issues that is consistant and
rational."

-It doesnt mean they are consistent and rational either.

"It is probably easier for me to have an open mind and
rational opinions because I do not have to worry about someone
interfering with my relationship to God, as for example Catholics
are doing when they say that people who voted for Barack Obama
are not in good standing with the church."

-Of course, you are better that way. You are probably the most open minded person I know. I couldnt possible be as open minded as you because I believe in God, and I cant think independently.

"Religion as much as it proclaims it wants to do good is more publicly
and spectacularly used for wrong."

-Show me.

"Anyway, I only came back to this article because pinged my profile and
asked me to Jason. And yes, your responses are totally predictable, so
I already know what were going to say. "

-I love the conversation, and the validation. I hope you continue to post here. Thank you, I find that when your positions are consistent with principle you almost always know where a person would stand on an issue.

"So on the one hand you have a group that wants to be accepted in society as an equal group,

-They are fully accepted in society as equal individuals, what they want as individuals is to have the rest(at least the large majority of the population that doesnt want to redefine marriage) of the individuals of society recognize their relationships the same way they view their relationships. They are trying to force the minds of the 60% plus of the US, that believes that marriage is what it is, into changing that definition into something else. Everywhere that has been tried it has failed, the people in California, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Arizona, Florida, etc. have all said you cant force us to believe that marriage is something than other what it is. Where it is legal it was done by a handful of activist judges. In California, and Massachusetts where there has been the strongest push for a redefinition are the places where civil union couples are denied no rights that a married couple has.

"another group who wants to "enculturate" a denial of human rights that this group, or should I say continue to validate a discriminatory aspect of our society that has no basis other than it is a tradition to hate and denigrate gay people."

-Thats right the opposition to gay marriage coudnt have any other purpose than to deny human rights, hate and denigrate. Good job Bruce, you cant make even one post without proving the point of the article.

"I'd say the clear perception of the problem does make one side a bit of a "demon" in that the reason they want to deny marriage to gays is basically because they say so."

Now we are demons, and there couldnt be any rational reason to deny marriage to gays.

"They back it up with religious or moral arguments, but those arguments are just arbitrary in terms of secular human rights."

-Please describe secular human rights.

"Religious people often use the because God said so argument to control people who do not believe in their God or who disagree with their interpretation of God."

-Some Religious people may, I have not here. Though for a majority of the population of the US the fact that God said so would not be an invalid point of discussion to them.

"I think that kind of thing is pure evil when it is done by Islam, and I do no think it is valid or moral thing when it is done here in the United States by Christians, or Mormons, who I do not count as Christians."

-Now, Muslims, Christians, and Mormons who disagree with you are evil and immoral. OK.
You are also going to define a religion that is named the Church of Jesus Christ, and believes that Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind, and the foundation of all of our beliefs is not a "Christian" Church. OK.

I loved those definitions, they are exactly right. When I posed that question I was actually referring to myself as viewing the other side as ignorant or lacking knowledge and contrasting that to the other side that views anyone that disagrees with their view as evil and intolerant. The point is that I dont assume to judge the intentions of others without a conversation with that person to find out their intentions, which is not a courtesy that is extended in the other direction. The best example of this is the conversation that I have had with Karaokeman on his posts. He has assumed the worst of a group of 13 million people, and assumes that based on his experience with a few in his area that all Mormons are inherently evil and would lie at the drop of a hat. Because, I have had a pretty extensive conversation with him on his posts, and seen the extent that he is willing to go to, to show Mormons are all evil. I am almost to the point of being able to judge his intentions, based on his unwillingness to seek out the truth when it is available. He is willing to throw out information that is easily proved wrong even with the most minimal research, as long as it supports his point of view. He is certainly ignorant, and probably worse. Anyways, thanks Emily for posting here, and I hope to see you around on other posts.

Again, man and women.

Though the purpose of this post is not to discuss the definition of marriage, I will briefly state my thoughts on it here. I may post a more lengthy response in the form of a separate post in a couple of days.
Marriage, as it has always been defined is between a man and a woman, and as the law stands here in the US there is no one that is going to be denied the right to marry. There is no one that is going to stand up and say any adult male can not marry any adult female. Thus nobody is being denied any "human rights". What is being sought in California and already accomplished in Massachusetts is the redefinition of marriage to something that it has never been before. All of this is regardless of a belief in God.

"Those gays and lesbians and their supporters are not evil, hateful or intolerant. They are angry that their rights are of no concern to the voters of California. It doesn't justify their behavior in some instances. But, it does explain it."

-Joe, I have not said they are evil, or hateful or intrinsically intolerant. In fact, as I state in my post I think most are doing what they believe is right, as far as their struggle to redefine marriage to be included in the group. I dont deny the feelings or the emotions involved in the relationships or in the protests that they have had. I am just wondering where the protesters and the groups I have talked about get the right to judge the intentions of those involved on the other side of the issues, and feel they have the need to assume and express the assumption that the other side is pure evil and thus are justified, in the case in California, in vandalizing, threatening and demonizing the other side.

Lance, I invite you to share your "proof" here on this post.

"The founding fathers always supported the appropriate amount of government to solve the problems of the day."

-All of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were completely clear in their beliefs about personal liberty in those documents and in their commentary about those documents. They did not support government solving problems of their day. The Constitution was designed to chain down the federal government to a very specific role, and limit their involvement in individual lives.

The founders did not see the world through the eyes of left and right on issues, they saw a political spectrum of tyranny to the extreme of one side and anarchy to the extreme opposite. Their first attempt, which was the Articles of Confederation erred on the side of more personal freedom, so we can see the mentality of the founders when it comes to personal freedom. There was a very specific "proper role of government", and first and foremost was to ensure the natural rights of all the citizens, and they codified this in the Constitution, and shortly after listed them specifically in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

"The attempt to blame government as bad started with
Reagan"

-I could list here endless quotes by the founders to show this is not true.

"a fascistic attempt by the Republicans to throw the
country into debt so that government would not be able to
track, regulate, of police the big monied interests."

-EXHIBIT A- I knew it would not be long before somebody jumped on here and tried to do exactly what I was talking about in my post. I would hardly defend the republicans for anything they have done in the last 20 years, but here we are within the first 2 paragraphs. They could not have a good reason for taking the stands that they do, they must be evil, fascists trying to steal everybodies money.

"The Republican strategy has always been to shy away from talking
about anything specific and throw it into a dicsussion about the
evils of big government, or how whatever opposes them is
socialistic, unpatriotic, stupid, immoral, or negative in some way
that conflicts with American values, in short, the Republicans
pretend to the moral high ground and just call the opposition
bad."

-Again I am not going to defend what the Republicans have done recently. Socialism is socialism, If somebody advocates it and proposes it to be passed into law, is it not OK to recognize it as what it is? Do you find the term socialist offensive? Unpatriotic? I would love to see where any main stream republican politician has called the opposition unpatriotic. Stupid; I would use the term ignorant, because usually this is the case. You think that it is the right that uses "stupid" as a term for the opposition? Lets take a look at the recent presidents of the US and see who has won the "stupid" name calling battle. Reagan? I would say that the left one that one. Bush? Left again. Clinton? Wow, again according to all media sources, is one of the smartest and astute politicians alive today. George W.? Again turns out he must be stupid. Finally Obama? I cant find in the several weeks since the election where anyone, left or right has said anything negative about this guy. So who is painting who here? Ok, lets continue; Immoral- come on now, there is a generally accepted standard for morality within the US, and where there is immorality it doesnt take a right wing extremist to call it what it is. Again immorality is immorality if you dont like being called immoral dont do immoral things, and that goes for left and right, republican and democrat.

"Funny that as a Mormon you claim to be tolerant of other's
religions, but Mormon is about the most closed system the
Christian side of Islam."

-Show me. This is an assertion I assume is easily proved if they are that extreme.

"You say that judging someone's intentions is something you
do very rarely, but your whole article is about judging others
to be bad."

-I am judging nobodies intentions, only the ideology that would allow only for assumption of evil for any opposition to that ideology.

"It does not matter who is intolerant, or who gets called intolerant,
what matters is whether justice occurs."

-This is an interesting statement, I would love to hear what you mean by justice in this instance.

"What morons say about gays behind closed doors is deniable, so they
can claim to be tolerant, while pointing fingers at people who were
demonstrating about Prop 8."

-There are no closed doors, I am not privy to any information that not available to anybody else in the world. It is all out in the open what we believe, there have been several talks by church authorities at our General Conference that deal specifically with gays their treatment among the church and the definition of marriage.

"To change the constitution of California should take more than
a simple majority,"

-This is arguable, and I would probably agree. But this is the law in California.

"Republicans always talk about state's rights, but here look at the people
of Utah pumped money into CA to interfere with a CA issue. It is
easy to see why the states rights issue is so important to Repubicans,
they want a way to manipulate politically the whole country, and they
can do it by manipulating states out of the sight of other states
and by interstate interference."

-Not one non-resident of California voted on prop 8. If you want to argue that the people that voted are unaccountable for their own votes, or are ignorant, uniformed and easily persuadable by TV commercials, I am willing to have that conversation but you cant say that there was anything illegal that went on.

"States rights and limited government is a scam, but people who are
scammers and who are disingenuous about almost everything they
say."

-Here we go again. There is no way any honest person could believe in states rights and limited government.

Thanks for your input, and demonstrating my point.

I dont know why everybody is claiming that this debate in California is about rights, in California every right that is afforded to a married couple is also afforded to a couple that has been joined in a civil union. The "right" of marriage, as is currently and always has been defined, is afforded to every single person in the entire US right now, there is no one anywhere that would stop an adult male from marrying an adult female. What the group supporting Gay marriage is seeking is to redefine marriage to be something that never was. They are trying to change the definition. It is like approaching the government and trying to get them to redefine all chairs as tables, because look they have four legs and you can set stuff on them.
The US Constitution as written by the founders was designed to chain down the federal government in such a was as to minimize the influence it tried to assert over individual freedoms and personal lives. It was later confirmed and clarified, what powers the federal government didnt have, by most of the original signers of the Constitution, in the first 10 amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution was not to protect the Federal Government from Churches but to protect the Churches from the Government. I agree that if the Mormon church was attempting to restrict the individual freedoms of anybody it would be out of step with principle, and I would definitely be troubled by that stand, but again they are seeking to keep marriage defined as what it has always been. They are not attempting to legislate what any person can do in the privacy of their own bedroom, they are protecting an ordinance that has been sanctioned by God, a covenant that He instituted and set the parameters of. Go make up your own thing if you want to governmentally define your relationship with your same sex partner, dont try and change our thing.
Joe, you may see baptisms for the dead as "very strange behavior." Again, this is probably because you dont understand it, and I dont know your religious affiliations but you probably find many biblical practices "very strange behavior."

"Bush gave the surplus to the mega wealthy"

-You mean that Bush allowed people, regardless of social status keep the product of their own labor, instead of plundering it and giving it to others who didnt earn it.

"covenants against high salaries and golden parachutes for CEO's that should instead be pushed out of their planes without any chute"

-That is a great incentive for business/economic growth and new business development.

"but with a distinct bruise on their backside from the taxpayer's representatives boot."

-Oh I see, the wealthy must not pay taxes so they dont get a representative.