Andrew Warner

Good for you. You are the first person I have ever seen who was able to fight intolerance with intolerance.

You are right to stand up against the banning of gay marriage, HOWEVER if you are going to slowly disassemble the Constitution (that part about "Freedom of Religion"), then you are a hypocrite.

Yossarian,

Yes, the 1st amendment does guarantee people the right to be silly.

Luckily, the same amendment gives me the right to point out how silly they are being!

I am surprised that you are intolerant of my Constitutional right to criticize religion and government (especially when the two are being merged as is the case with Mormons and Romney).

Why are you being a hypocrite and criticizing my right to criticize?

"Good for you. You are the first person I have ever seen who was able to fight intolerance with intolerance."

You must not get out much then.

Besides, I hope everyone is intolerant of opinions presented as fact without any scientific or logical basis (like a Mormon's opposition to gay marriage).

Like Andrew Sullivan has expressed in his line of thought, I too would leave his religion alone (eh, maybe) if he did not run as a religious person. If he wants to deal with secular issues then that is great. However, with his blatant attempts to assert the Mormon/fundamentalist will, he opens the Mormom/fundamentalist belief system to honest criticism – underwear and all.

Don't forget to bash Harry Reid, also a Mormon - and one who has stated publicly that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman.

Harry is in a MUCH more powerful political position, since he's set to become Senate majority leader. Oh ... and he's a Democrat.

How come he doesn't get same treatment? Could it be because it doesn't fit the template of kooky religious people – who are, according to the script, always Republicans?

But Andrew, you do nail down a very important question - why the people of Massachusetts elected Romney. Either they are stupid, crazy or there's a very good reason that hasn't been articulated here, since Massachusetts is one of the most flat-out unapologetically liberal states in the union ... hmmm ...

Marriage, fundamentally, is a sociological institution for creating a raising children.

Now, government has gotten involved in defining marriage. I don't like that (I also think the idea of gay marriage is dumb, but that is beside the point).

Marriage should be strictly contract law between individuals. There should be no governmental sanction of any marriage.

Yes, I think marriage should be a contract, not something one has to get a license for. Since any adult can enter into a contract, then any adult could enter into a marriage contract with any other adult. Problem solved.

I guess some people just feel justified in telling people how to live.