For your information, Mr. Martin got in a lot of hot water over those kind of remarks.
Just like with most everything, some did and some did NOT. I voted for Chuck and I don't feel that way at all.
Neil, the only problem I have is when people try to rewrite history and keep insisting that our Founders were not Christian. They were Christian and that is a fact. They also believed in religious freedom and that is depicted in our Constitution.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, I thought we'd gone over this already. I think a lot of the problem, at least here on RPF is concerned, is because it has been approached from the perspective of passing a law to sanctify gay marriage. This is in turn would result in laws that dictated to private property owners and businesses. People don't like to be told what to do, Neil. The problem could easily be solved it seems, if we took the stance that government needed to get out of marriage altogether. This is what Ron has said before; that, and return it to churches. Then people can marry who they want and call it whatever they want to call it.
Question about this:
For your information, Mr. Martin got in a lot of hot water over those kind of remarks.
What kind of hot water? And from whom?
And the issue of re-writing history comes up when people try to claim that the United States was meant to be a Christian nation. I don't deny that some of the founding fathers were Christian. But the abscence of laws respecting religion in the Constitution is not an accident at all. The Constitution Party platform's stance that the Constitution is an extsension of biblical law is a perfect example of this re-writing of history.
When they say they don't want gays to be allowed to marry, they don't site private property rights, or employers, etc. They claim that their religion alone has the monopoly on the marriage institution and it's definition, and that no government can honor any marriage contrary to their god's defintion. Before you dismiss this, consider the precedent it sets. What would be next? What else can we say "Well, the founding fathers were all Christian, so therefore we should not let the Constitution define this thing contrary to our religion, or that thing contrary to our religion...and freedom of religion obviously meant the freedom to be CHRISTIAN! Well duh! All other religions are just Satan after all...so we should ban those. While were at it, let's force our religion back into the public school system. (Yep, that's in their platform too) about? How many more biblical principles need to become law on the grounds that the founding fathers were Christian? Who's intrepetation of them will we be using?
When they say they want to ban profanity, they go on a huge tirade about what they feel is against their religion about profanity and pornography. They even state that the FIRST AMENDMENT gives them the right to ban speech and determine what is speech and what is not! They state that since sex was created by God, they should have the power to legislate that as well.
They oppose suicide even for medical reasons, and call upon the government to continue to make anything illegal they feel is contradictory to their religious practices. Some of these nutjobs even think that Homosexuals should be executed.
These people re-write history when they fail to remember that during the time period when the Constitution was being drafted, the founders specifically did not want religion in it, as the various Christian sects were committing acts of violence and sometimes outright murder on one another, and using the state to help them do it as often as possible.
And they even violate their own religious practices when they try to deny free will to people to decide if they will live a Christian life style or not.
What kind of trouble did Steve Martin get into? I would be very interested to know. That argument went on for pages and pages on a message board where that sort of thing generally doesn't happen.
I hope we can all get along better after today. 
