I work in the field and really need an option for mobile digitizing. Legal-sized capability would be a real plus!

I'm with Ian & Lee. I am way to busy to deal with payments and bills so I adopted a "set it and forget it" strategy to go with my paperless billing. I have monthly and quarterly payments set up for pre-authorized payment on my cash-back credit card, which is also set up to be paid automatically from my checking account in full when due. Anything I can't pay by credit card is set up for recurring ACH from my checking account. I have a savings account set up with auto deposit every month that accrues enough money to handle my semi-annual and annual payments. This methodology has worked flawlessly for several years and helped me maintain a sterling credit rating despite simultaneously juggling a family and job while completing a masters degree.

Interesting consideration, Familyman37. I think there would be ways to make the process no more cumbersome than it already is so that it needn't negatively impact the number of marriages taking place. I am thinking that most states already have a significant number of requirements that couples who wish to be married must fulfill prior to a marriage certificate being granted. Blood tests are required, affidavits must be signed, waiting times must be fulfilled, fees must be paid. All of these already take place at the county courthouse or office of records. Having a Justice of the Peace pronounce the union, or enact the contract, at the same location would be a simple thing to accomplish as the final step in the process. My suggestion would be to make it easy for couples to do it all in one place. Once the civil union has been signed and sealed, couples could take that in hand to their clergy, just as they do today with their marriage certificate, and have their vows consecrated.

I think the reduction in marriages that we are witnessing today has a lot to do with straight couples feeling less need to formalize their relationships. Many have become marriage-shy as a result of the high divorce rate. Perhaps it is a practical consideration in light of the high divorce rate. They may wish to simplify their future exit strategy, if needed, by choosing to keep the relationship informally defined in order to avoid the necessity of going to court to end a marriage relationship. For others, it may be a monetary issue, such as not wanting to give up alimony, social security, or some other benefit they receive as a result of a prior marriage. Perhaps the declining number of people who regularly attend church has reduced the inclination to be married in one. I'm not certain the reason(s), but I don't see gays as responsible for the decline in the number or quality of straight marriages. On the contrary, it is my hope that, with gays seeking the right to marry, the discussion will shed new light and emphasis on the importance of marriage and the family unit. Perhaps this whole issue is a blessing in disguise, with gay marriage leading to a resurgence in the popularity of marriage.

Familyman37, thank you for having an informed opinion on this issue and discussing it logically without resorting to religious dogma as the basis for your conclusions. I find that refreshing.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps "marriage" should be the term reserved for the act of consecrating a civil union before God in the church. Especially since the Christian coalition in this country has claimed the word "marriage" as their own and seems unrelenting in their defense of the term. I would be okay with this if American society could agree that, to keep the contractual and legal aspects of coupling or partnering equal, that EVERY couple, straight or gay, would be required to go to the court house to be legally coupled, where they would receive a civil union that granted them all the rights and responsibilities that come with such a union under the law. Couples of faith could then take the extra step of having their unions consecrated by the church/faith of their choice according to the traditions in which they believe. To my knowledge, this is the way it is done in Europe and other parts of the world, and it seems to work quite well. The faith-based ceremony could retain the title of "Marriage." I think the big hang-up for everyone on both sides of this argument is the word "Marriage", specifically who can claim ownership of the term and who gets to define it. The problem is that "marriage" has two meanings in American society. It conveys the contractual agreement that is recognized under the law AND the faith-based concept of consecration of the marriage vow before God. I say, let the faith communities have the word "marriage," but let's define the legal contractual union as what it is, doing so equally for all, and make everyone who wants to enter into such a bond with another person do so by following the same civil registration process. Equality under the law is the operative fundamental as far as I'm concerned.

While I agree with your examination of the word HATE and the correction you point out about the terminology used in the Bible regarding homosexuality, its a far stretch to claim that the Greek and Roman empires fell BECAUSE of homosexuality. Read some history for Pete's sake! There were many other social, political, and economic issues that led to the downfall of those cultures, not what their citizens did in their bedrooms.

Perhaps you should be more reserved in basing your judgments on the interpretation of the Bible passages that purportedly forbid homosexuality. There are many Bible scholars today who question whether the word "homosexual" is the accurate translation in those verses. While homosexual may be the historical or traditional interpretation, it doesn't necessarily make it an accurate one.

Our children and grandchildren are exposed to much more offensive violence and sexual content on television, and in real life, than this commercial! I'm way more worried about my kids being indoctrinated to a host of other things than I am about them adopting a tolerant view of gay people.

Thank you, Familyman37. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the foundational function of marriage is to provide a stable family unit and that this is a desirable situation for the raising of children. I also recognize that there are many families that never conceive, yet they still enjoy the rights and responsibilities of marriage. And as an adopted child myself, I can appreciate the fact that many families choose, for whatever reason, to adopt rather than procreate. Since many gays and lesbians birth, adopt, and foster children, doesn't it make sense to help insure a stable family environment for the raising of those children by allowing gays to marry, giving them access to all the rights and responsibilities that will help make them successful parents and marriage partners? If marriage helps create a stable family environment for the raising of children, then as a society, we should be encouraging gays to marry as a means of supporting and creating a stable, economically sustainable, and safe environment in which to raise their children. We owe it to the kids, if not the parents.

Where exactly is marriage defined as the union between a man and a woman? That is a relatively new definition, and one that has only recently been codified into law. Same-sex marriages were recognized in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt long before god selected the Jews to be his chosen people. The ancient Greeks were also tolerant of same-sex unions, and in Roman culture same-sex unions existed as high in society as Roman emperors. So, no, the standard has not been "one man and one woman" for thousands of years. If you wish to model contemporary marriage on the Biblical standard, you should recall that Jewish men were allowed to have multiple wives, a man was required to marry his brother's wife upon his brother's death, and a Jewish male who raped a single woman was allowed to save himself from punishment by marrying the woman he raped.

As far as death being the ultimate oppression, how can you not be aware of the gays and lesbians killed in this country every day? Matthew Shepard and Brandon Tina come to mind as some of the more well-publicized deaths. But what about all the teens who commit suicide every day in this country, driven to it because of the merciless bullying and teasing that they receive at the hands of their oppressors? The even greater tragedy is that some of these kids who have died were not even gay, they were simply perceived to be gay, and therefore hounded to death. Oppression and persecution in any form is wrong, and I WILL NOT enter into a debate with you about which oppression is worse based on the number of deaths of one group or another. The whole concept disgusts me.

I honestly can't say how many gay people there are actively campaigning to wipe Christianity from the face of the earth, but I suspect that most of them have their hands full raising their families and making a living. And I wonder, if Christians weren't so vocal about insisting that gays have no rights, if gays would really care about the Christians at all. Yes I realize that Christians are being persecuted around the globe, but it isn't by gays, its by Communist regimes and other governments who see our faith as a threat to their power base. Yes I did fight for Christian rights while I was in the military, but not for the right to plaster our teachings on the face of every public building and square from Maine to California. There is a time and a place for the teachings and the Word and it is NOT in venues where those who don't want to hear or see it have to be faced with it. The USA was founded on the notion that government will give no religion preference over another. I would be a hypocrite if I said I would fight for Christians to engrave the Lord's Prayer above the door of every government building yet not insist on the right of the Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims to so the same. So, in a free and equal society, no one should get the privilege of placing their religious icons in public places. We already have places for religious icons to be displayed and viewed, they are called churches, synagogues, and mosques. As far as Christians being persecuted in the media, most of that is self-inflicted. When Christians fall, especially in a hypocritical manner, such as the married male evangelist who is sleeping with male hookers on the side, it creates a media sensation. And the fact that Christians are so insistent on writing discrimination against gays into legislation is news worthy, even if it is out of step with the majority of fair-minded Americans (53% by the latest AP poll).

They have the inherent God-given right to pursue their version of happiness and to be treated equally under the law. Christians didn't invent the concept of marriage. Marriage was a contractual concept long before it was adopted by the Jews and Christians as a religious institution. And marriage isn't a God-given right anyway. There was no marriage in the book of Genesis. God created Eve to be Adam's companion, namely because Adam couldn't find any of the animals in God's creation to his liking, according to one of the translations of the Bible. Marriage isn't Holy because God ordained it. God never said, "Go and be married." He said, "go, be fruitful and multiply." However, we don't nullify marriages or consider them unholy when a couple chooses not to procreate, or can't procreate for some medial reason. The marriage bond becomes holy when the couple stands before God and asks their vows to be sanctified. That is not the union that gays are asking for. They are asking for recognition, not by any church, but under the law, and with that recognition I have no quarrel. In fact, I believe they are entitled to it under the articles that founded this nation. I am aware of the DOJ's position not to defend DOMA, and in fact, I support that decision, just as I support a gay person's right to openly serve their country in the military. Fundamentally, because my life is not diminished in any way by allowing gays these same freedoms that I enjoy, while disallowing them causes great disservice and hardship to many gays. I believe that both DAADT and DOMA are fundamentally flawed pieces of legislation. In my belief system, it is not right to persecute gays simply because I do not agree with the way they live their lives. Fundamentally, I will not be swayed from this position, and I doubt you will be swayed from yours, so let's just agree to disagree. I have enjoyed the discourse though, so thank you for a lively discussion and a chance to share why I believe the way I do. Bless you Brother Mike.