Yes, I think this is a very worthwhile distinction.

I think a lot of the controversy comes from strings that are attached to government funds provided to religious charities. These strings for government money I don't think are exactly the same as forcing them to approve, the government doesn't have to give them money and they are not entitled to it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that was the issue with the Catholic Adoption Agencies in Massachusetts. Whether or not tax payers in these states want to fund charities because a majority think it is wrong to discriminate against gay couples is their call.

In some respects making them pay for these charities with their tax dollars is actually the other way around, you are forcing the tax papers to approve of the charities' values.

I'm also curious: who let Miss Lopez out of that stairwell?

Given the rise of Santorum and the emphasis he has put on social/moral issues, I think the questions were relevant. If Republicans think the gay issues are such winners for them, why are they afraid to talk about them in debates?

I'm just judging from all the punditry howling about the questions being asked. Apparently the big fat gay question is the question that dare not speak its name in a national forum. It's only important when Republican candidates are trolling for votes in social con mountaintop enclaves, I guess.

Newt knocked it out of the park with that answer (as did Romney and Perry on that same subject). When Newt's at his best, as he was for the most part tonight, he's great. Unfortunately, behind Dr. Newt lurks evil Mr. Gingrich, and inevitably that latter persona inevitably comes to the fore given enough time.

The problem is is that you're the one who wants the federal government to define marriage laws in all fifty states--you're not content to leave it up to the people in the states to decide for themselves (granted a lot of the pro gay marriage people aren't either, but you're no different).

Listening to Gingrich preach about the holy sacrament of marriage was pretty amusing, given how he he has treated two previous marriage cavalierly, let us say, but the worst of the bunch was, yes, Santorum, Unlike Romney and Gingrich and Hunstman he couldn't being himself to put up even a facade of empathy for gay people. That's because, it seems evident to me, out of the closet gays utterly disgust him. That;'s his right to feel that way, but that level of disdain isn't going to play well with socially moderate voters.

The moderators also needed to ask about "don't ask, don't tell," since I presume the GOP candidates are committed to restoring the policy of throwing out gays out of the military. The GOP needs to be completely honest about the extent of its anti-gay agenda. It's evidently not something incidental to the GOP, Miss Lopez.--certainly not to Santorum.

How, exactly, does the GOP want the "federal government to define marriage laws in all fifty states?"

DOMA defines marriage at the *federal* level and protects each state from being forced to recognize an out-of-state "marriage" that contravenes its own law. It protects federalism rather than encroaches upon it.

The Federal Marriage Amendment makes use of a legitimate tool provided by the Constitution - the amendment process - and would have to be passed by 3/4 of the states in order to be ratified, not imposed by federal fiat. As such, the suggestion that it would represent the "federal government defin[ing] marriage laws in all fifty states" is patently bogus.

You're in dire need of better talking points.

Should read "initiates."