Religions must be free to OK gay marriage
Bonnie Quirke makes the claim that "government policy must respect those who stand for marriage as a union of a man and a woman" and that "here are a growing number of incidents in which the government has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect those beliefs."
But the government cannot show preference to select moral or religious beliefs, or to any specific individual or group which holds them. It can and must however uphold the right to have specific beliefs.
The government is beholden under that amendment to protect not specific beliefs themselves, or even those who maintain singular beliefs, but the right to have those beliefs as opposed to others.
Ms. Quirke asks, "If there really is total religious freedom in gay marriage, then why do we have two bills pending in Congress to protect religious freedom?"
The point is that there is not. When citizens, gay and straight, of faiths such as Buddhism which allow gay marriage are forced to follow the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage as found in other faiths such as Christianity in order to access the right to marry at all, then everyone's religious freedom is at stake.
There is no religious freedom when any citizens are forced by law to follow faiths other than their own in order to access any civil right. And, there is the legal access to a right or no, but, as it is written into civil law, marriage is still a civil right, for gay as well as for straight citizens.
And as civil rights, including religious freedom, are bestowed on individual citizens first before the existence or creation of any political or religious group, the religious freedom of organizations to object does not by law trump the religious freedom of individuals, gay or straight, to be civilly married in the first place.
John F. Page
Lawmakers not representing people
Our representatives have voted to "kick the can" down the road, run up more debt and do nothing to reduce spending.
Every poll that was taken over the past several months, indicated the majority of those polled, wanted the debt reduced, Obamacare delayed so that people would have a better understanding of the plan and reduce spending. Evidently the people we send to Washington do not represent the people that send them there.
Those representatives that voted against the bill were mostly associated with the "Tea Party" and highly criticized in the press but at least they represented the voters that sent them there. It will be interesting to see how many more times the "can" is kicked down the road before a budget is signed into law.
As far as Obamacare which has turned into one of the most divisive programs in my life time, actually has some good benefits, such as, people with preconditions cannot be refused insurance and children can stay on their parents plan until age 27. On the other hand it does infringe on religious freedom which has led to many lawsuits and will continue to be challenged.
It is amazing how a program to provide insurance for 1 percent of the population has turned into such a train wreck.
I just received my insurance information for 2014 and my cost is going to increase by $2,000 if I want to continue with the same program. People have no idea how insurance cost will continue to rise and the effect on selection of doctors, hospitals and services.
God bless America.