The Catholic Bishops are the only group refusing to accept the compromise on contraception. Why, one wonders, would anyone listen to what these old men think about anything? These "pillars of Christendom" -- who will never marry or have children, who dress in funny clothes, and who have covered up myriad cases of child molestation -- have no right to an opinion on what birth control options are available to women. Women should have a right to contraceptive options, a right that cannot be thwarted by Catholic dogma molded by the likes of Bishops who do not live in the real world.

In what field did Brian Hale obtain his doctorate? It certainly wasn't in law, or logic. He equates committing homicide with making a life-long commitment to a loved one.
Equal protection under the law means that all people are allowed to love whom they choose, and to have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that go with a secular marriage. A church doesn't have to "bless" the couple to conclude that government cannot justly deny these folks the right to form the same kind of union allowed heterosexuals.

Thanks, Rickaroo. You are right; religious institutions have inserted themselves into the secular domain, but they don't want to play by the same rules as everyone else. Good grief, they don't even pay taxes on the millions they rake in from contributions and "non-profit" ventures.

I don't know whether "all" liquor stores in TN are locally owned. Maybe that's true. But, the grocery stores employ local residents, and the more product the stock and sell, the more people they'll employ, thus keeping that money, and the tax revenue, in TN. Alternatively, many people now shop outside of TN because AL and GA allow them to buy wine in grocery stores. In that case, the income and the taxes go out-of-state.

I seriously doubt anyone has an abortion out of "convenience." That's a snide and self-satisfied assumption by one who will never be gotten pregnant.
The real issue is whether the government can mandate what women can do with their own bodies. Every woman I know is capable of making procreative decisions for herself. And, if she isn't allowed even that right, then what does "freedom" mean?

Don't confuse the differing roles of church and state. As far as the government is concerned, under the US Constitution, gay marriage is a simple issue of civil rights. The term "marriage" is sometimes freighted with religious significance, but it also has a secular meaning. Churches can refuse to "marry" a couple, but the government cannot. Gays have the same rights as non-gays to make a civil commitment to "marry" (with or without a church ceremony) and share their lives with whomever they choose.
Many so-called conservatives who rail about government interference in our lives are all too happy to insist that the government should supervise personal relationships, and decide what people can do with their own bodies.

Thank you, Cliff Ling, for an excellent letter. I, too, long for a newspaper with integrity. The right side of the political spectrum might have some ideas and policies with which I could agree; but the blatant dishonesty, distortions, ignorance and lies from that quarter make me suspicious of everything they say.

Thank you, Penny Furman and Edna Taylor, for having the courage to write intelligent, thoughtful letters to the editor, despite the likelihood of facing personal attacks by the likes of "riverman."

Labels are misleading, and force a false dichotomy. The issues -- and the candidates -- are far more complex. (Ex.: Newt is a gluttonous, obese, adulterous, wife-dumping "conservative.")

And, definitely do not want one.