WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Sometime before Memorial Day, the United States Senate will consider several proposals to put taxpayers on the hook for “national catastrophe insurance” liabilities that could easily top $100 billion.

The proposed legislation, intended mostly to reduce soaring homeowners insurance  premiums along the Atlantic seaboard, would damage the environment while likely failing to keep consumers’ insurance costs down. Quite simply, it’s a terrible idea.

Government-backed catastrophe insurance, also known as “backstopping,” would transform the U.S. Treasury into the insurer of last resort for nearly every disaster-prone home in the country.

Two proposals that have already passed the House of Representatives would expand an already troubled National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, to cover wind damage and allow the federal government to sell reinsurance to private companies.

In either case, the federal government would set premiums and, in return, provide policy holders and insurance companies with coverage against certain events (hurricanes and perhaps earthquakes) and specific levels of insurance claims.

Following a disaster, the government would pay insurers which, in turn, would pay their policy holders.

Many private companies already sell reinsurance that works this way, but proponents of the legislation argue that tax exemptions, economies of scale, creditworthiness and the implicit promise of a bailout would let the feds charge less. Since lower prices would reduce costs to insurers, proponents argue, savings would trickle down to consumers.

Because the programs could break even over time, the theory goes, all this wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything.

To see why it wouldn’t work, one needs only to look at the flood program that covers nearly all residential flood damage. Although Congress intended NFIP to support itself, it regularly borrows money from the U.S. Treasury (it currently owes almost $18 billion), charges prices that don’t cover its costs, and, as a result, fails at its supposed objective of discouraging building in flood-prone areas.

State-government sponsored reinsurance efforts have also failed dismally. Florida’s existing hurricane catastrophe fund program imposes a potentially crippling liability of around $30 billion on the state’s taxpayers and hasn’t even reduced consumers’ rates.

Because private reinsurers already avoid most taxes and manage their risks more broadly than the government could (they work internationally, whereas the government’s risk necessarily focuses on the United States), a federal program probably can’t charge sufficient rates and still deliver savings.

Instead, politicians would likely deliver rate cuts the same way they have with flood insurance: by forcing the program to set premiums below actual costs.

Given that Florida’s program imposes a $30 billion liability, a national program would probably put taxpayers on the hook for $100 billion or more.

And this implicit subsidy would make it practical for developers to build in currently wild or lightly developed coastal areas where conventional private companies won’t write policies. That’s why groups like the National Wildlife Foundation, Friends of the Earth, and Sierra Club have spoken out against it. There’s no guarantee that most consumers would see rates go down in any case.

Most insurers actually filed for rate increases after the state of Florida massively expanded its own catastrophe fund program. Although rising homeowners insurance premiums are mostly a problem for coastal states, which should try to solve the problem themselves, the federal government does have a role to play. Efforts to end state setting of homeowners insurance rates — the practice in 49 states — provide the best long-term solution.

Over time, risk-based insurance rates alone would force property owners to either make their homes more disaster-resistant or move out of dangerous areas. To facilitate the transition, however, federal efforts should focus on programs that help people help themselves through disaster mitigation.

In addition, Congress might even consider direct insurance premium assistance targeted towards incumbent homeowners of modest means.

A massive new reinsurance subsidy program, however, will endanger both the nation’s fiscal health and its environment.

When it considers proposal for federal reinsurance, the Senate should reject it.

Eli Lehrer is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Comments from Examiner Readers

2:36 PM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "Chris Stirewalt: Will John McCain learn from GOP's latest loss?"

OIF Vet said:
McCain and the GOP members of Congress are a different animal. The GOP is getting burned in Congress because it deserves so. There was some initial promise in 1994 but it soon evaporated when they became addicted to Pork. As a Republican, I can't make myself vote for a Democrat in Congress but will definitely abstain at the Congressional and Senatorial level. I'm hoping that the GOP loses at least 50 seats... it will be good shock therapy for the Party. Although I disagree with McCain over 50% of the time he will get my vote because of only one reason... I believe that he will appoint the right people to the Supreme Court. Maybe the GOP will get their act together, regain Congressional power in a few years and start producing legislation that matters to the people.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

11:30 AM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "Melanie Scarborough: �Colorblind� government a joke"

Examiner Reader said:
Examiner Reader said: "Federal government knows it is good business to do business with BIG." Please submit the entire post as a letter to the editor. If the paper can commit 1000 words to an uninformed, poorly-researched screed, then it can commit 150 words to a letter that puts things into perspective. How about cutting back Melanie's weekly column to a bimonthly column, so she can devote more time to actually researching her topics.

2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:22 AM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Oh, the agony of parenthood"

Ruby said:
With CPS interferring more and more in the lives of families, it will be amazing if parents get a chance to teach and guide their children in any of their own values. Parents will be afraid to take their children for medical treatment for injuries, afraid to discipline their children, afraid to home-school their children if they wish, all for fear that someone will falsely accuse them of "abuse" or "neglect". It makes it hard for parents to do our job of being parents effictively.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:10 AM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "Chris Stirewalt: Will John McCain learn from GOP's latest loss?"

Examiner Reader said:
Stirewalt's point should send chills down the GOP's spine. Every Republican will be branded racist by the mainstream media this year.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:55 AM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Oh, the agony of parenthood"

A Mom and a Boss said:
As a mid-40s employer and mother of 3, I have been spectacularly unimpressed with the lack of drive in the teens/early 20s I meet. I don't know where the line between coddling and guiding is, but I certainly think this generation of parents ought to give it a harder look.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:02 PM MST on Wed., May. 14, 2008 re: "Melanie Scarborough: �Colorblind� government a joke"

Examiner Reader said:
Ms. Scarborough is misinformed. As stated by a previous comment, the organizations listed are indeed membership based. Secondly, for those organizations, such as, Blacks In Government, Inc. (BIG), that has received the designation as a "Recognized Employee Organization for Training," had to meet the strict guidelines set by the Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service. Thirdly, DOD and the largest human resource organization in the country, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), qualified BIG's National Training Conference as being in compliance with Title 5 U.S.C. Chapter 41, Training. BIG provides certain CEU training tracks. In addition, over 25 federal agencies participate during BIG's National Training Conference as a venue to provide pertinent agency-specific information. BIG's conference is attended by all nationalities. And, as an organization, we are proud of the attendees. The federal government knows it is good business to do business with BIG!

5 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:45 AM MST on Tue., May. 13, 2008 re: "Melanie Scarborough: �Colorblind� government a joke"

Examiner Reader said:
Melanie Scarborough: �Colorblind� government a joke 2008-05-12 07:00:00.0 shows an apalling lack of research. First, none of the organizations are anything but membership organizations - they are not federally funded. Second, when they put on training they are just as any other vendor - motivated to attract the best and most learned teachers and present courses germane to the federal workforce. You need to hire a professional writer.

7 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:28 AM MST on Fri., May. 9, 2008 re: "Timothy Carney: Big Government churns out more Democrats"

Examiner Reader said:
All major , big cities run by democrats are sinking big time start in Philadelphia, and go from there.

7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:31 PM MST on Sat., May. 3, 2008 re: "Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches"

Examiner Reader said:
I guess it is only supposed to work one way. You support RLUIPA which imposing religious "freedom" on secular zoning, but oppose a law which imposes secular law on religious freedom I do support your representation of religiouos groups, e.g., freedom for polygamists and goat sacrifice. This is not meant to be a tongue in cheek observation. Robert I. Rhodes, Chairman, Preserve Ramapo

15 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:23 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: Obama should actually read the Constitution"

Examiner Reader said:
�Well, it isn�t the mindset,� Scalia said, as later reported in a CBS online account of the exchange. �It�s what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution.� How does this differ from Obama's opinion? I'm of the opinion that a constitutional scholar's interpretation is more meassured than appointed court judges!

15 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:17 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: Obama should actually read the Constitution"

Jim said:
No one in Washington (except Ron Paul) gives a flying damn about the Constitution. You could subsitute in the name of just about any political figure in the last 50 years (except Ron Paul) and say the same thing about them. The Constitution ain't hard to figure out. It lists exactly what government is allowed to do. If it isn't in there, they can't do it. Simple. Clear. Elegant. Is that too complex for you?

20 agree | 17 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:24 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: The delicate dance of the seven evasions"

Terrence Briggs (Gaithersburg) said:
"Part of everyone�s problem is that it has become acceptable to express only certain views, to follow only certain narratives, and if your private thoughts depart from these, you�d better keep �em private." It has not "become acceptable", Ms. Gurdon; it has ALWAYS been this way. Most polite adults realize that there are some comments and observations that you cannot share with mixed company. (Remember, there are four things that you can't discuss: religion, politics, s-x, and The Great Pumpkin.) Of course, that goes for liberals, conservatives, black, whites, men, women, and so on. I realized this in college.

20 agree | 18 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:11 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: The delicate dance of the seven evasions"

Barely About Barack said:
Ms. Gurdon said, "...if blacks lean toward black candidates, why, nothing could be more natural". You will be hard-pressed to find many black voters who leaned toward Al Sharpton. Fewer leaned toward Alan Keyes. Very few leaned toward BOTH. I mentioned this fact to my uncle, who suggested that black candidates are innately more in tune with the concerns of black voters, and he conceded the point.

20 agree | 21 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:39 PM MST on Tue., Apr. 29, 2008 re: "Melanie Scarborough: U.S.�s only unregulated killing industry"

Examiner Reader said:
I wish animals in slaughterhouses were treated as humanely as unborn fetuses. Melanie, you clearly need to take a trip to a slaughterhouse, or a chicken factory, to see how horrid the conditions are. That Food Safety and Inspection Service policy is just a guideline, not a law, so there are actually no laws protecting poultry--imagine having your nose and fingers seared off without anesthesia, then hung upside down by your feet and dunked head first into boiling water and then if you're still alive, having your throat slit at the same time as being skinned. That's the death of a chicken. And with the comment "if kittens were treated with the same brutality afforded unborn humans"...I'm spaying an at-term cat tomorrow (they're kittens, not fetuses), feel free to come watch. There's no uproar going on about this cat.

18 agree | 19 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:01 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 25, 2008 re: "Timothy Carney: NBC�s �Green Week� and GE�s green"

Thomas said:
Typical. The far- & rabid-left news elites (& all the other F/RL's, for that matter) condemn tyrannical capitalism, big companies, & anyone who disagrees with them-until they get bribes. It's almost like MTPPV: Mob Tactics Pay-Per-View. I'll be the first to admit that there is some of that with the right (Ann Coulter isn't quite that bad, but comes close), but this is ridiculous. It takes an accomplished liar & bigot to do something like this, then clame that they are completely unpartisan, followed by shooting down anyone who disagrees.

22 agree | 22 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:48 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 24, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: �Going green� may mean going bananas soon"

Jim Schulman, Sustainable Community Initiatives said:
1) Mr. Ambrose, Genetically modified foods have been shown to do documented genetic damage to insects and plants in the vicinity of where they are grown, thereby potentially affecting whole species (e.g. killing Monarch Butterflys) and impacting ecosystems. People who eat the modified food may not be directly impacted, but could be indirectly affected. 2) For those who have paid attention over the last couple of years, the process that selected the Nevada nuke waste repository has been revealed to be heavy on strong-arm politics and somewhat scientifically-fudged. The hydrology of Yucca Mountain looks like it could be a protected site for maybe 300 years, not 100,000! A big ooops! The nuclear power industry is sadly still thus fatally flawed. Conservation, windmills, photovoltaics, wave, and tidal power are looking awfully worth our attention.

22 agree | 30 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:45 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 24, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: She�s awful but at least Hillary is not a snob"

Anti-Partisan said:
By the time I graduated college in Texas, I experienced more than enough partisan elitism from both sides. Gurdon touched on liberal bigotry, but doesn't seem very bothered by the misogynistic, xenophobic, negrophobic, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic bigotry that also infects conservatives. Are the targets of such bigotry not "common" enough to be branded as "elitist"? And what could be more "elitist" than chauvanism, which infects conservatives, as well. Gurdon's shallow charge against liberal snobbery isn't holistic mirror-gazing, but chauvanistic navel-gazing.

26 agree | 31 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:56 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 23, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: �Going green� may mean going bananas soon"

Efficiency is King said:
Challenging one of Jay's remarks: "To avert imagined catastrophic climate change, the Senate is considering a bill that would mandate reductions of greenhouse emissions by 66 percent over the next four decades...that could give us catastrophic social change...we would simply have to live with less energy, which is another way of saying we would have to live with less of everything: Health care, transportation, food, clothing, housing, you name it." This binary logic eats away at your argument, Jay. Do you honestly believe that it's impossible to be more efficient energy consumers? Efficient use of indoor climate control, gasoline, and water is already being done! Future growth is NOT directly proportional to past energy use. Economies don't crumble because the air conditioner isn't set below 70 in the summer. Educated consumers will adjust to a more efficient lifestyle. So let's educate, rather than complain.

26 agree | 26 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:01 AM MST on Mon., Apr. 21, 2008 re: "Melanie Scarborough: U.S.�s only unregulated killing industry"

Todd (2 of 2) said:
In truth, Melonie never offer solutions, just her personal outrage based on her narrow and rather unworldly views. She would have us all believe that abortion is the only issue upon which to select a U.S. President. Tragically, to her and others, it may be. As for the rest of us, with a more balanced perspective on abortion throughout the history of the human race, we may choose to elect a president on all of the issues facing our country, world and future. We understand that compromise may be necessary where our beliefs with each candidate differ. The fact that Melonie believes that making abortions illegal will stop abortions proves her inability to understand the real abortion issue, just as making animal abuse illegal did not stop the two workers from hurting cows in California (or Michael Vick or tuna fisherman). Melonie doesn�t have solutions to the real problem, just a platform provided by The Examiner to make spurious arguments for her personal causes. I vote to fire her!

30 agree | 39 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:50 AM MST on Mon., Apr. 21, 2008 re: "Andrew Rys: Compromise is America�s lost civil virtue"

Erica Jacobs said:
Fine essay! I like the small revisions you've made recently.

33 agree | 32 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:00 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 19, 2008 re: "James Kirchick: Who is really stifling honest debate about the Middle East?"

Examiner Reader said:
You are, quite simply, wrong in almost all of your ill thought out beliefs.

32 agree | 28 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:58 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 18, 2008 re: "Timothy Carney: Tax bandits will have plenty to celebrate this April 15"

Examiner Reader said:
When republicans controlled congress the abuse of ear marks were an all time high, now the democrats have a narrow majority in congress and neo coned fools start crying about ear marked money. Bush has added his own earmarks into the budget, not to mention all these fake republican supported contractors who have stolen billions of dollars in this fake fiasco Iraq war.

25 agree | 28 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:38 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 18, 2008 re: "Quin Hillyer: Court should stop California�s patent theft"

Examiner Reader said:
Very well said. California should not be able to sue others repeatedly for infringment of its patents, and then claim "sovereign immunity" from suit by others when it is itself guilty of wholesale infringment. It is even more egregious when, as in this case, the State of California enacted legislation which made it illegal for any private licensee under the BPMC patent to practice the patented procedure in California without sharing its data (and proceeds) with the State. This effectively precluded many existing commercial labs (including Labcorp of America, Quest Diagnostics, and SmithKline Beecham) from continuing a portion of their lawful business activities within the state. In effect, California usurped the legitimate rights of the patentee to reap the rewards of activities within the state that are covered by the BPMC patent. That's just wrong, from any viewpoint - and certainly cannot be within the purvue of what was intended by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

22 agree | 23 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:35 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 18, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Looking for hope in the wrong face"

Bill Evans said:
Re: "Looking for hope in the wrong face". Mehgan, You seem to have a very limited view on the world. Let me point out to you that the pope does not have exclusive rights on hope. He is not God and everyone is not Catholic. But everyone can have hope for a better country and a better future. My hope is that we can focus on lifting people up instead of tearing people down. Is that all you have to contribute to the conversation is negativity?

23 agree | 23 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:27 AM MST on Mon., Apr. 14, 2008 re: "Bryan O�Keefe: Labor bill empowers government to set wages, benefits for private workers"

Examiner Reader said:
Business leaders and owners could have prevented this legislation by ceasing their practice of preventing unionization of their organizations. It was their decision to spend the last 30 years thwarting workers interests, now, because of their failure to act prudently, they find themselves confronted with an outcome guided almost entirely by the interests of organized labor. Bush, will, of course, veto the bill when passed, so it's hard to see what all the whining and hysterics are all about. But, the days of being able to "run the table" against workers is likely coming to an end and wise businesses will get prepared to negotiate with organized labor rather than just attempt to defeat them.

26 agree | 24 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:39 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Quin Hillyer: Senate Dems ignore Puryear despite Thurgood Marshall praise"

Examiner Reader said:
This article is full of lies. CCA, for instance, doesn't operate prisons for 5-20% less than public prisons. A good study on the issue was done for the state of Arizona. The for-profit prison industry has 30 times as many escapes as do public prisons. They overbill the states with whom they contract for millions of dollars. They've gotten away with a lot more theft than the inmates they hold.

35 agree | 29 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:58 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Robert A. Levy: Should Congress or the courts decide D.C. gun ban�s fate?"

Examiner Reader said:
churches dont have to marry people they can go and be married by a judge or something although i am not for gay marriage::i think that if we were meant to have gay marriage we would all be the same sex:: yet i believe we should let the gays do whatever floats their boat... as long as it dosnt interfere with me

31 agree | 32 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:14 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Chris Stirewalt: Campaign hounds didn�t bark at Petraeus�s Senate hearing"

Examiner Reader said:
Mr. Stirewalt has come to the rescue of the urbane and sophisticated perceptions of themselves and those outside the beltway. Scrolling through the comments we see "offense" at the notion that voters in the upcoming Appalachian Democratic primaries may actually confront racial concerns in casting the ballot. Shocking! What the readers certainly are determined to say is that such behavior could only be exhibited in the Republican primary.. Nevertheless, hard truths (which are not necessarily inconvenient)are sometimes difficult and jagged pills. More difficult to swallow for one reader who offers up that their own Appalachian heritage was impugned. This fine West Virginian (and yes, I am one too) should note the polls. His or her WV party's support goes overwhelmingly to Sen. Clinton. Beyond being difficult to swallow for the "offend-istas", these columns are truly refreshing for your readers. I welcome such common sensical, and pleasantly communicated, commentary.

31 agree | 30 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:22 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Are members of U.S. media mostly of pacifist bent?"

Examiner Reader said:
its not the media,its an ignorant,de-educated,sheep mentality population that allows for a total takeover of brain cells.

31 agree | 28 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:01 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Are members of U.S. media mostly of pacifist bent?"

Examiner Reader said:
Surely some American journalists are pacifists; surely many are not. I do think, however, that inevitably, individual viewpoints bleed into all but the very finest reporting (and perhaps is necessarily reflected even there, too), and that we are kidding ourselves to assume otherwise.

29 agree | 26 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:28 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches"

Conscious Reader said:
How will gay marriage spark lawsuits against churches? Churches, from my understanding, don't have to marry a "straight" couple, if they don't want to! Straight people that aren't married by a church aren't suing them to make them do it. Who would want to be married in a church they had to force to do it in the first place? Not me! The churches are trying to strong arm the law, and this is just wrong. Separation of church and state was for good cause. It is sad that years after those bandits drafted the Constitution, implicitly keeping the church from having power over the law, that we seem to actually be going backwards from their thinking...Are Americans "really" getting dumber? Are we really so hell bent on creating enemies, religion is fine with creating enemies, that we have to start doing it to our own citizens? First it was through slavery (sanctioned by the church), then Jim Crow (church), interacial marriage...I could go on. We have to better, this is a waste of time!

28 agree | 29 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:39 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches"

Jonathan for Equality said:
If anti-marriage-equality lawyers expect to win cases on the merits of the arguments of Mr. Severino, they are in for a heap of trouble. Remember the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Severino argues that government employees may impose their religious beliefs on people seeking government services: "We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired." What about justices of the peace who believe in marriage equality but work in states that have banned it? Would Mr. Severino defend their religious liberty? Also Mr. Severino, it's not charitable to refer to families as "families". Would you like to be referred to as a "lawyer" or a "Christian"?

28 agree | 35 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:45 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 9, 2008 re: "Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches"

John D said:
I would ask Mr. Severino this: interfaith marriages are completely legal in the United States. Many clergy will not perform marriages for individuals who are not in their denominations. Where are the lawsuits? There are no grounds for retaliation against denominations that do not perform same-sex marriages. They have the right to continue to do so. They trample on the rights of others when they seek to block civil authorities from applying the laws equally or to block other clergy from blessing marriages as they see fit. The flip side of this argument is the clergy forbidden to perform marriages their denominations permit. That's real oppression on the basis of religious belief.

23 agree | 28 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:31 PM MST on Mon., Apr. 7, 2008 re: "Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches"

Examiner Reader said:
Firstly I would like to point out that this article is not only discriminatory but highly offensive. When talking about adoption rights, the author suggests that gay couples are incapable of properly raising a child or that they may have negative influence on the child. Also, I would like to say that times are changing and, although we can respect religious beliefs, we cannot let them stand in the way of the progression of our nation as an accepting one. Additionally we should recall that the United States practices the separation of church and state. By allowing religious influences to be the deciding factor in our government's position regarding gay marriage, we are therefor allowing church and state to mix. Similarly, a judge's duty is to make decisions based on the law of the state, therefor the judge in question should have kept his personal religious beliefs aside, and performed the marriage. I was shocked and dissapointed upon reading this article.

27 agree | 35 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:29 PM MST on Sun., Apr. 6, 2008 re: "Chris Stirewalt: Hillary Clinton still has the hillbilly firewall"

Examiner Reader said:
is this a joke? Do you really want to insult, ridicule and stereotype that many people who vote for Senator Clinton? So who are the other 49.25% of the Democrats who voted for HRC... actually it is probably more because BHO has gotten many Indie and Republican votes. I guess you should know you have created a firestorm among the "hillbilly's" in W.Va. and elsewhere. This article is becoming a viral email campaign to get out the vote. Even some Obama supporters are insulted and threatening to change their vote. Nice Work, Thanks a bunch! Oh, If you could write a few more of these columns stating such well thought out stereotypical "insights" insulting other swaths of society we would all greatly appreciate it. Gotta luve the internets. It even lets us ol hillbilly's figur out stuf we nvr cudda lernt without it. you no how 2 yuse that thart spell chickin thingy?

35 agree | 32 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:42 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Into the great, unplugged silence"

Unplug Close to Home said:
I'm sure it would be nice to pay for an excurison to Maine or the Carribbean, but there are plenty of places to unplug that are clsoe to D.C. that don't require a massive schedule change. Pretty much any place on the Eastern Shore, or in the Appalachian Mountains can be reached in less than a few hours. At least you won't have to worry about the price of gas th