The easy thing is hardly ever the right thing. That's one of the biggest problems with the world in any place at any time, people look for whatever will patch the problem as easily and as quickly as possible. Doing the hard thing requires the willingness to stand up and say we do these things "...not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." And while John F. Kennedy was talking about going to the Moon that's the mentality that we as responsible members of any society must have towards everything we do.

It doesn't matter what action is taken, you can't please everyone so we must do what is right regardless of the criticism and uproar that comes of it. The right thing, the hard thing, is only rarely supported by the masses of the present but is always appreciated by the public of the future.

P.S. Sorry this came out of the blue, this debate came back into my attention and I felt that I should finish what I meant to say but never had the time or the energy when I first got involved.

I can't speak to policy of any country except for the United States. I don't even know if this is an issue for non-Americans. But more importantly I was rebutting an argument that specifically discussed the issue in regards to the US Constitution, or at least that's how I saw it when I wrote that response. As such I responded to that person's particular point.

Replace the word "marriage" in government documents with the word "civil union", ta da! The government then only deals with civil unions between two consenting adults of any gender. Marriage would then be a word reserved for individuals and churches to define. If a church decides that only a man and a woman can marry then same sex couples will not be recognized as being married by that church or members of that church. They would still receive the same benefits of a civil union (previously known by the government as a "marriage") but the "sanctity of marriage" is maintained for groups who do not approve of same sex couples.

Marriage is a word whose connotation and definition differ from individual to individual. The use of the word by government is provocation for misunderstanding and schism. Will people immediately say "Wow, the government isn't calling your union a marriage so I'm OK with you now,"? No. But that's too bad. A hundred and fifty years ago people looked at a freedman walking down the street and said "Somebody aught to sell him." Society has to change and we as rational human beings have to acknowledge that even when we don't approve of someone's choices they have a right to make them. We have to accept that all humans are entitled to equal treatment under the law. No one should be treated differently by the law because of their social class, their gender, their sexual preferences, their race, or any other traits unless they have in some way harmed another person through direct action or inaction.

I think the issue being addressed here is a question of whether or not marriage for anyone can be considered a right guaranteed by the United States government. Not necessarily the question of whether or not same-sex couples' marriages specifically are recognized by the government. As for my personal views on the issue I honestly think the best solution is for the government to simply call all civil unions precisely what they are: civil unions.Leave it to individuals and churches to determine the definition of "marriage."

I'm not defending the Zionist movement, merely pointing out that the Jewish population was already in the region when the country of Israel was established. Would it be any more right to force these natives to leave their homes? The UN plan would have carved up Palestine along cultural lines. I agree that the Palestinians have a right to their own sovereign state; but it will be extremely difficult for this to happen now that Palestine has spent so many lives on both sides fighting a war that never needed to happen.

If we're looking into the past for reasons lets consider the Palestinian "Exodus" once more. The Arabs of the region refused accept a Jewish dominated neighbor and in order to avoid a war that they instigated the Palestinians left their homes. Rather than accept the plan that would have left everyone with the lands that they already inhabited the Palestinians have conducted a campaign of terror and propaganda. Israel has responded with overwhelming force. The fact remains: the fighting was instigated by Arabs not Jews.

Many of the Israelis went to Palestine during the era of the British protectorate. The Palestinians were not displaced by any Jewish occupation. On the other hand, Jews were forced out of their homeland during Arab occupations of their native lands. Does that give them a legitimate claim? Not necessarily, but clearly the majority of the UN believed that they did have a right to a separate state. As I said before the native Arab population did little to prevent the formation of the state of Israel, instead they waited until the deal was finalized to ask for assistance from surrounding Arab states. There is only one incident that I know of in which Israeli soldiers forced any Arabs from their homes, most abandoned their homes with the belief that the Arab armies would be victorious and they would then return. Their refusal to accept Israel as a legitimate state made them refugees, not the existence of Israel or actions taken by the Israelis.

Yes, the Jews had a right to a nation in their homeland. Historically the Arabs are the invaders, this of course does not make the modern Palestinians invaders, however it should be remembered that the Jews and Arabs have a very long history. Further one has to remember, during British rule thousands, perhaps even millions of Jews fled to Palestine in the hopes of a new future far from the antisemitism that plagued the world in that period. There were conflicts between the Jews, the Arabs and the British. When it was decided that the United Kingdom would relinquish their protectorate the UN needed to find a way to prevent conflicts. The Jews were there, and were as much entrenched into their homes as the "native" Arabs and the UN developed a plan that was intended to give both the Palestinians and the Israelis land to avoid conflict between the two groups. Great care was taken to avoid displacing anyone in the process. Obviously it would have been impossible to prevent all displacement but as I said an effort was made to avoid that unfortunate circumstance. To my knowledge the Palestinians did not participate in that process.

I would be terribly amiss to make any claims that one side or the other is completely without blame for the current circumstances, however history shows us that it was indeed the Arabs that have consistently tried to eliminate the Israeli nation. Consistently Israel has defended itself with whatever force necessary and consistently the Arabs have tried to turn their defeats into a story of oppression by the Jews. I believe that both have a claim to the land and that through reason and compromise a solution that is beneficial to both sides can be reached. However, as long as organizations such as Hamas continue to escalate the Jewish-Arab conflict no such compromise can be reached.

The violence in the region was initiated by the Palestinians and the Arab nations bordering the region. Under British rule Palestine was a haven for both Jews and native Arabs. However, in recognition of the long chain of abuses against the Jewish nation throughout the world the United Nations determined to create a sovereign nation for the Jews in the former British protectorate. The Arabic inhabitants of the region refused to accept the plan, though they made no attempt to make their case in the UN or to try and peacefully mediate a new plan. Instead shortly after the Israeli nation was created the Palestinians welcomed an Arab army invading from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq in May of 1948. Many Arabs fled the region (estimated up to 80%), with the promise of a triumphant return when the Jews were utterly defeated. They would be disappointed. The Israelis refused to give up their new state and forced a stalemate ending the war.

Personally I believe that the Israeli and Palestinian nations are entitled to their own states. However, concessions must be made by both sides in order for this to be a practical solution. The UN's original partition plan, or another like it, should be adopted and Jerusalem should become an international territory controlled by neither country. However, this cannot occur until Palestinian terrorism is desisted and both parties become willing to come to the table peacefully.

I apologize the statement seemed to be implied by your rebuttal.

How is not funding stem cell research a violation of the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress is not establishing a state religion, nor is it infringing on the rights to worship as an individual chooses. Instead it is legislating based off expressed opinions of a majority of the population through their election of Congressmen and women.