Government-funded Contraceptives

In response to Juliana Solitro's commentary about government-funded contraceptives:

Currently, compared to other countries, U.S. teenagers are having the least amount of sex. However, the U.S. also has the a very low usage of contraceptives, and greater percentage of ten pregnancies. In fact 1 in 5 babies that are born in the U.S. are born to a teenage mother. If contraceptives were more easily accessible, then we may be able to change these statistics. Many teenagers disregard birth control in fear of their parents finding out. If they go to an organization such as Planned Parenthood, they are charged insane amounts of money for contraceptives. Offering free contraceptives will give young women many more options, and will help improve not only the lives of the women receiving the aid, but also for the unborn child who's time is yet to come.
If making this change for the betterment of many peoples lives is not reason enough, then the toll it will take on your wallet by NOT opting for government funded contraceptives certainly will. You must take into consideration how much it costs to raise a child, and also keep in mind that the woman who is having the child (who was unable to afford birth control) will not be the only one paying these costs. Since the child will be growing up in a poor household, they will most likely turn to other government-funded programs such as SNAP  or Medicaid to pay for their child's health costs. That money will be coming out of YOUR wallet. Compared to  hundreds of dentist visits and doctor's appointments, supplying birth control is the least costly way to go about this problem.

http://politicalwallflower.blogspot.com/2012/03/issues-on.html

Gay Rights Vs. Religious Liberty

Many cases have been popping up around the U.S. concerning the clash of gay rights, and religious liberty. Recently, a home based photography company in Albuquerque has received substantial public uproar as they have been thrust into the center of a new controversy. When a same-sex couple asked the owner of the company about photographing their commitment ceremony, she responded that she would be unable to fulfill their requests. Shortly after,  a complaint was filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission which developed into a case. The owner of the  business argued that when she had started her artistic career, she promised herself that she would never photograph anything she didn't agree with. Being of a strong, Christian faith, she viewed same-sex marriages as morally wrong. The court, however, did not find this an acceptable response and fined the business owner on the basis of discrimination.
There are two conflicting ideas here that we must somehow find a middle ground for. One is that of supporters of same-sex marriage (which is now at 70% of adults aged 18-35), and the other being the idea of religious freedom. As public opinion has evolved to prefer gay rights, the laws are slowly changing to benefit gays and lesbians. This has been an uphill battle lasting decades, still with a long way to go to make it to equality. Just as discriminating against an African-American or a handicapped person as applicants for an apartment, telling a gay or lesbian that they cannot rent an apartment due to their orientation is wrong as well. On the other hand, it is explicitly stated in the constitution that we have the right to religion. To tell a Christian pastor that they MUST wed two grooms, no matter what his opinions on the matter is just as wrong. Can a middle ground be found?

My opinion on churches closing their doors to same-sex couples is this: No house of worship should be required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. But state, and taxpayer-funded agencies should treat everyone equally. Otherwise qualifies same-sex couples should have the same access to public services as opposite-sex couples. Businesses that hold themselves out as public accommodations should be ready and willing to serve everyone. Anything else is discrimination.