In the movie VOLVER by Pedro Almadovar that is now playing, there is a scene where a woman dying of cancer agrees to go on a talk show to tell her families "secret" in return for the funds she needs to go to America for treatment. It's a small part of the movie, so I don't spoil it by revealing that she walks off the "show" deciding not to tell--that it is better she die.

Another character then responds (these words aren't exact) "It is better to keep what is private, private." Her courage is rewarded by those she protects.

It is the best dramatization of this problem I have ever seen--making it a matter of life or death for the character so the viewer can determine what they might do, and where their sympathies lie. Almodovar knows exactly what he is offering.

It is the choice between dignity and shame--individual responsibility vs. victimization. Aside from accruing power for themselves, it is hard to determine what the evangelical clergy and Catholicism expect to gain by their gross interference into the lives of their flock at this point in history.

To justify their interpretation with the bible makes a mockery of the bible, or in the case of Catholicism with "dogma" brings into question the entire purpose of organized religion. I like to believe that it is only a matter of time and education before the sheep realize they are being led to the slaughter.

That the American West instinctively, and the Libertarian Party intellectually understand this gives hope to those who fear we are in a new dark age--where the rights of the individual are being sorely eroded. Maybe the fundamentalist South and the brainwashed can't hear it now, but with states like Arizona resisting these attempts to invade our privacy more will wake up.

According to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of The Consitution of the United States of America: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Yet this is not the case in our society. Repeatedly the Court has refused to hear cases regarding the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. This is wrong. I would not prepose to say something as ludicrous as "The forefathers intended that every person regardless of sexual orientation..." That's a straw-man if ever there was one. The founding fathers did not have Queers on their mind. The term homosexual wasn't even coined until the 19th century...so how could they, living in the 18th century, be thinking about this? I do, however, believe that our founding fathers knew that society is not a static poem. Society moves, and flows, with the caprice of God and mankind as its only guiding forces. We as a society have developed a new breed of human being. We have allowed the "homosexual" to feel comfortable in his/her skin enough to want to live openly and freely. Should not all Americans live with the same rights and priveleges?

We are standing at a cross-roads. One direction leads US to the shining hills of liberty and equality whereas the other, with its dark and trecherous turns and pitfalls, leads only to confusion, despotism, and holocaust. It is sad to think that in today's America one who is gay can imagine a day when his/her rights to the most fundamental things could be stripped away. It is not inconceivable to me that a Queer pogrom could happen. We must not allow the rights of our brethren to be winnowed away through passage of civil unions, or any other misnomer...these only are compensation prizes to keep us Separate but Equal.

I implore you, My Friends, write to your congressional reps. Ask them to remember the way they felt on their wedding day. Ask them why someone should be barred from feeling that same feeling. Pleade with them to understand that it is NOT a choice. The only choice that is made by a homosexual is whether or not, in the face of overwhelming opposition, he or She will stand up to be counted as a Man or Woman...should we silently slink into the darkness and live from the table scraps given us like dogs? Legislative leftovers cast out to the urchins at the door? Our will you, for only you can, create a place for everyone at the table so thoroughly stocked with freedoms and liberties, that we all may dine as brothers?

Do not waste the gift of liberty that has been given to us. It's price is mired in the blood and sweat of countless men and women. Did their sacrifice happen in vain?

I am tired of the controversy. Marriage in the US,as in most other countries, is a civil contract. While it is true that the officiating in the signing of that contract has been delegated in part to religious authorities, it remains that these same authorities have no say in the eventual dissolution of that contract: the only way to undo the contract, divorce, is through civil courts. thereby clearly proving the nature of the contract.

Just as catholic priests refuse to celebrate unions between a catholic and a non-catholic, religious authorities have the right to refuse to celebrate same sex marriage. HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO DEFINE RETROACTIVELY WHAT MARRIAGE IS AND TO IMPOSE THEIR INTERPRETATION ON WHAT IS A CIVIL CONTRACT

This article is dead-on. I'm a 4th generation Arizonan and registered Republican when I turned 18. When it became apparent 'my' party was going to nominate Geo. B I realized the snake-handlers and Dr. Strangelove were in charge and bailed out. People in the West don't like being told what to do by the government or the Jesus freaks. We make up our own minds and mind our own business. Personal responsibility, consequences for one's actions, and self reliance are big themes here. If the Dems want to tame the Wild West they need to work these themes into the message.