I don't think gay marriage should be allowed. I think it should be encouraged.
I was raised to look at homosexuals as less than human. Looking back, I believe I can find the time <a href="http://www.FairAndUNbalanced.com?http://www.testimoanials.com/blog/blog1.php/2009/05/22/gay-rights-and-the-orange-juice-lady">I first began re-examining the issue</a>.

You fight fire with fire, O'Reilly. It's that simple. "Bigot" is an appropriate epithet for someone who cannot let someone else be. You agree not to force your superstitions on me, and I will stop calling you a bigot. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

The left has "started" calling anti-abortion people bigoted against women? I was a clinic defender in the late 1980's, and we knew then that Operation Rescue and their ilk were anti-woman. All it takes is one woman bleeding to death from a back alley abortion because she would rather risk death than be pregnant and you understand that those who wouldn't give her that option are anti-woman. Heck, I'm against abortion. You reduce their numbers through support and education and creating a climate of personal responsibility, not by making abortion a capital crime. (That's right, folks; in Utah, abortion is a capital crime, and the only reason doctors who perform them aren't subject to the death penalty is Roe v. Wade.)

Read why the national organization Operation Rescue is no more. They were blockading a women's clinic when one of the patients, pregnant with a very wanted baby, arrived because she was spotting. They began to harass here, surrounding her in the street. She fell down there and miscarried. When she sued them, she got everything. Then tell me these bastards aren't anti-woman.

As for gay marriages, when the State gave itself the ability to license marriage, it created a legal contract of marriage that is separate and distinct from the religious sacrament of marriage. The State does not have the right to prevent anyone who is 1) of age and 2) mentally competent from entering into marriage any more than it has the right to prevent those same people from buying a house, starting a business, or accepting a job. The State will marry many people that churches won't. Try being a Jew and marrying a Hindu. The State will do it. Few houses of worship will.

Of course many of the states that will end up banning gay marriage until the Supreme Court rules it must be permitted are the same states that would ban gay employment and gay homeownership. Columbia students laughed at Ahmadinejad. The only reason John Huntsman doesn't say the same is that he can't lie on stage.

Those that would call Pro hetero marriage bigots are bigots themselves. You are not allowing them to have their own opinion by treating their opinion as false and labeling them. I am in support of the state getting out of the marriage business. Marriage is defined in many religous scriptures and as such is a religous ceremony binding two people under their god. There are many churches that are not as strict that will preform a marriage ceremony for gay couples. Also, a civil union is the same as a marriage in everything but name. So, take marriage licenses away from the state and make everyone get civil union papers. Then find a church that you wish to get married at and get your marriage paperwork. You would end this debate here and now. Everyone would have equal rights. I welcome someone to challenge this proposal with a valid reason for how it would not work. Hetero sexual couples would still be married in the true sense of the word, and homosexual couples would still get equal rights and equal opprotunities.

This is why Bill O' Reilly sucks: http://tinyurl.com/cmla89