No, we are one nation under the Constitution. Not everybody is so ignorant that they take two words in the Pledge of Allegiance as literally as they do their bigot bibles.

You do not have ANY rights to make unconstitutional laws like bigot straights-only or whites-only marriage laws.

Not a one.

You do in CA and MA



You are a supremacist.

You are arguing for heterosexuals-only marriage.

Heterosexuals do not rule. You are not the boss.

We do not have to live under your bigot "opinions" -- go move to Afghanistan if you want those kinds of opinions to pass as "law".

The Christian bigot lifestyle choice is immoral and unethical.



They should be looking for a cure for bigotry.

Hey wait, there is one, already.

It's called a serious education. I suggest you go get one, post haste.

Dumbest argument, ever. That has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage equality.

Jesus does tell us to love everyone, including sinners.

Jesus is irrelevant to this topic.

Laws are based on opinions all the time. We have speeding laws and a whole host of other motor vehicle laws based on opinions of safety for others. We have minumum wage laws that are set based on opinions of what a minumum wage should be. Most laws are based on the opinions of what the majority of people belive we want our society to reflect. The constitution does keep restrictions on those laws, but that is also up to interpretation based on opinions of people, generally judges. That doesn't meen judges have the right to overide the people opinion with theirs. They do try though. I take for granted that 2 people from the opposite sex have the right to marriage, the same law for straights and gays. If you want a law to allow marriage between same sex or a man and a horse, you can, but will need the majority of people to pass it into law. Good luck.

Did anyone seriously think the winner of the Democratic primary would not need to communicate some degree of independence from a completely liberal set of positions? We should want someone who will occasionally disappoint us and tell us some things we don't want to hear. In the case of Obama I think he is considering the political winds but also expressing what he really does believe. I'm not happy with the FISA bill for sure. But a little nuance on late-term abortions, a willingness to be flexible and listen to the military in Iraq is pretty reasonable. After seven years of someone with no flexibility or willingness to listen to others I think this is as good a candidate as we could have hoped for.

Go get 'em Barack

Marriage is not defined by the constitution. The public has defined it, through the act of marriage which is a religous ceremony. No matter what you say, you do not have the right to determine what a religous ceremony is or not, and you are not allowed to make laws or change laws just because of your opinion. We have laws regarding age as well. The fact is that the constitution protects people from laws. The constitution would only overturn say a municipality from not allowing a gay to marry someone of the opposite sex since that is what marriage is defined as. Until the law is changed to allow same sex marriages or human and animal marriages then it is equal for all. And there for constitutional.

If we are speaking of competent adult American citizens, our basic rights should not be denied because of popular opinion. Sometimes they have been of course, but can't we agree that those fundamental rights should be protected?

I am VERY happy here. You seem to be unhappy though.

Marriage equality has nothing to do with religion. Nobody is forcing religious institution to do ANYTHING.

Marriage equality is concerned with civil rights.

Religious opinions are irrelevant.

Then quit whining about the gays.

Here's some more to rub your nose in.

Like they did with Loving vs Virginia, and as they will continue to do with exclusionary anti-gay marriage laws voted in by bigots who think they deserve more rights than others.

Rights are defined by the constitution.

Bigots don't get more than the gays.

Live with it.

Not according to this bigot, who thinks inequality should be the law of the land.

On the topic of 'WTF is Obama doing?':

"Slip slidin' away
Slip slidin' away
You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip slidin' away"

On the topic of Gay Marriage:

middleoftheroad :

Unequal treatment under the law because someone is black: Bad
Unequal treatment under the law because someone is gay : Good

Does that about sum up your position?

The difference between O'Bama and Bush or for that matter McCain?

He's smarter, and surrounds himself with smart people.

I thank God he listens to his own heart more than the blogosphere if this thread is any indication.

I am disappointed, even by Randi at moments, that the left does not trust this man. He is honestly smarter than most of us.

He's out there to win. He's doing that particular thing way better than HRC ever did style wise.

When I see that the far left is pissed, it warms my heart. I means WE ARE GOING TO WIN.

Finally a Dem with balls. Thank you Jesus.

Thank you, Carmen. Exactly correct.

Did he actually tell you that he chose to be attracted to other men? What motivated his choice to be attracted to other men? Was it the lifestyle? The clothing, the clubs, the discrimination, the slurs, the chance that he might end up dead like Matthew Shepard? Was he bored of being attracted to women? Or does he have this thing about marriage? Did he decide to be homosexual just to avoid marriage, since he only believes in marriage between a man and a woman? Does your brother have a partner who feels the same way?

*the phrase is, "I couldn't care less."

This may also be the first "Straw-brother" argument we've had on this board.

I was about to go to bed but felt I needed to clarify my post, de-troll it if you will.

WTF is O'Bama doing? Winning.

What do I mean by "balls"? Well Kerry did not seem to have them, or trust them. Gore actually did not seem to have a pulse, still does not.

Is that sexist? Well, I don't think you can have bigger balls than to ask about a dollar a vote in campaign debt relief for your support, and that would be HRC.

How important is this election? Just the makeup of the Supreme Court for the rest of my lifetime.

So WTF is O'Bama doing by making the far left and the far right cry?

Winning.

A presidential election really has two campaigns.

The first campaign is to win the party nomination. During this campaign, the primary goal is to convince the most hard core in your political base to vote fore you, as they are the ones most likely to vote in a primary.

The second campaign is to win the hearts and minds of the American people. In order to do this, both Obama and McCain have to appear to be more centrist in their positions.

I think this will be easier for McCain, as he has a record of reaching across the aisle. I think it will be a tougher sell for Obama.

The next 4 years will be surprisingly the most difficult to survive. Even after the last 8 years of total incompetence (by design), we're stuck with what is now cast in stone. Obama will have his arms twisted to follow the course.... or else. I hate it .... but I also understand it. For Obama, it's his survival mode in Washington. Do what he's told or find himself vulnerable among the killer sharks.

In defense of Obama, any candidate would have been faced with the same dire delima. That's just how dangerously important our last election was for Kerry to win. Since it was again stolen for the King Cowboy, we have been thrusted into decades of poisonous decay and self destruction. The US will simply face it's own implosion and chaos, and it will more than likely happen under good leadership if that makes any sense.... only because it's too far gone to reverse it..... for it is all set in stone. The Middle East is broken and because we broke it .... we'll pay.

So you think it's only members of CP-USA (is that what you mean by "far left") that care about FISA, faith-based initiatives, him turning on MoveOn.org (which had endorsed him), late-term abortion rights, etc.?

I agree he's a Democrat with balls -- sure like to see him use them against the other side, for once, rather than his own.

actually, what i find is mccain has lost some of his base as in i have seen articles about how the religious base he would have had 8 yrs ago isnt what it used to be, obama has the entire democratic party and left whether they all admit it now or not, those few who will vote for mccain who supported hillary i believe most were repubs in the first place, so no real loss there and there aint many of them


you are correct it is harder for obama to credibly move to the center in this short of time, but he can and will pick up votes

will say it again, obama cant do worse than a 8 point win, anything less than that and we need to look at the ballots...


http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/EvangelicalsforObama

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...amacurious.html

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/03/eva...-for-obama.html

http://www.abpnews.com/1174.article

Whaddaya mean by that! I bet some of his best friends are...

EXACTLY! Good to see ya Seeker, and good to see we agree on something!

Hey Teri... notice the Bill Maher forums are back... but, can't say I have much interest in going back, especially after they took them down for ... what? like 3 months? ... with no explanation.

Plus some of the characters I really despised over there were the first to come back when they got revived.

I know we had some spirited arguments ... but I never put you in the same category as them.

Yeah, we got shafted over there a bit. Oh well, and so it goes.

Same here. We may have had some spirited disagreements, but I admired that you always provided facts and a very compelling argument, instead of just name calling and tripe, like so many others. Hey, that's what we're doing this for right? To learn and open our minds? You educated and informed me on your position, and I really appreciate that kind of discussion.

I'm still getting the feel of things around here, but it's good to see another familiar face.

hang around and myself and others will be familiar faces before you know it

Thanks, I plan to. Nice place! So many other boards have turned into propaganda centers, and not places for thoughtful, spirited discourse. I've never been one to cede all my own opinions to that of "the group," and I don't plan to anytime soon. Life's too complex for that. It's clear folks here get that, and I'm certainly enjoying all the diversity.

that's because you are a kiss ass

i kid and you know it

LMAO! I haven't heard that in a while.

now don't get mad at moi but i really wanted to say maryfuckingsunshine.

i always meant it as a title of honor. no really. in a mary tyler sorta way but doris too.

cut me some slack after you rubbed my face in nadal today.

Don't give him any money. He has the WORLD's RICHEST backing him. Save your money. The country's going to hell in a hand basket and you're going to need all your money. The best Obama is going to offer you is a roof over your head and a spot in the soup kitchen line...for your labor.

And you'll be grateful for our contemporary FDR.

Lol, that's TeriFuckingSunshine to you! I actually always kind of liked that name you gave me. It goes so well with my avatar.

Yeah, but she KICKED BUTT in Love Me or Leave Me. Jimmy was indeed great, but she should have been nominated that year, too.

Awesome movie.

Special shout out to seeker1,

No, as someone typing at a computer and rarely speaks on a "wire" FISA could not be more important. The other stuff is over my head, so we may not be able to argue at your level and that is not sarcastic as I love a good argument.

I just think Joe Sixpack probably does not get it. I am not afraid of insulting bitter Joe, pun kinda intended, as he is not here.

But I am sure the RNC is.

O'Bama understands he must do a full court press. It may get messy for the left.

To be clear I am socially liberial while conservative about international issues. That comes from a desire for an even playing field, and by definition other governments do not play by our rules.

I believe in our country's founding documents and again our only protection is the Supreme Court.

O'Bama is our candidate, and he beat HRC who a year ago was unbeatable (so thought General Electric and a host of other military contractors).

So let the man make his moves. He seems to have a master plan. The time to hassle that guy is after he is elected. IMHO.

smiles ~ glad you're here.

you and your emoticons

The disconnect, I feel, is separating religion from public policy. Not everyone has the same religious values as you, and you cannot enforce your religious mores on people who do not share it.

You define Marriage as a religious institution, and I agree that it is.

So make it one.

To make religion a religious institution eliminate all marriage certificates in the country. Everyone legally is now in the same boat, domestic partnerships. So legally all people can enter domestic partnerships and then marry in the church of their choosing if that is the direction they want to go. If they just want to stay domestic partners they can, if they want something more, go do it but it's not the concern of the government.

If that is your position then my proposition is valid, but it isn't, is it? A Bar Mitzfah or a first communion do not have legal standing, why should a marriage have one?

Well said!!!!!

I AGREE! I, of course, am most fond of her citchy sort of rolls like Pillow Talk, but that's by far her best dramatic performance - there are so few (I looove Teacher's Pet as well with Gable). She got type cast in people's minds into the girl next door and was never really respected as an actress. By I sure love Doris, and do my best to remind people of her.

Sorry folks for going so far off topic.

I realize a few of these only speak of civil unions instead of marriage, but if Americans permit civil unions, it's really only one Supreme Court Case away from being made fully legal (a la Brown vs. Board of Education's ruling that separate is not equal)


http://www.pollingpoint.com/result/18

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/01/61982

http://www.facebook.com/politics/debate.php?id=6246438270

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/13/...in4180335.shtml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGAOHSE4I1.DTL

First, let me ask you wtf. Twice now in this thread you've compared homosexuals wanting to marry to what can only be described as interspecies marriage. Also, the constitution does not protect people from laws, but from the government (and the government's misuse of said laws)

Allow me to remind you of some of the wisest words ever spoken by a religious figure, Jesus: "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar, and to God that which is God's". It is kind of the basis of our separation of Church and State in our Bill of Rights.

Although the public has defined marriage as a religious ceremony, the legal benefits associated to them are not based in a particular religion. Therefore, the legal benefits should be defined in a secular perspective, which falls under the purview of our legislative branch (who answer to us) and laws that are already in place are subject to the interpretation and review of our judicial branch. Not religious leaders.

Two people, of the age of consent and not of blood relation to each other, should be allowed to enter the legal arrangement of being married and receive said legal benefits. To be made beneficiaries on each other's estates, to be included in each other's tax forms, health insurance, and be allowed hospital visitation.

This is the precise reason why a homosexual couple must be allowed to be legally married, not to fly in the face of some people's concept of faith or families, but to be treated equally under the law with their chosen life partners.

But then the supremacists can't have supremacy, which is the whole goal of these selective "traditionalists".

They don't like it when that happens.

Did you actually watch more than 9 seconds of EITHER of his 2 media statements?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuBLRP-vH08 (<-- this one is the BEST!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2WS0kiX5Os

Turn off your frickin' TV. Stop reading the rags. Ignore the pundits. Go see what Barack actually says -- it's all on youtube, 24x7.

If you think this is bad, just wait to see what happens between August and November.

Keep the faith. Trust but verify. Barack is the man, he says what he means and he means what he says. Millions and millions of dollars are being spent to mislead you. If you must watch or listen (or read) the idiot media, just remember to go verify the truth. Nothing is better than youtube -- you decide, don't let ANYONE think for you.

Desperate for answers, so you grab that???
That phrase was added in 1954 to the "Pledge of Allegiance", the phrase is not a law.

That why wasn't Jesus married to a woman.....if your God intended that marriage was between male and female only??

If Jesus was his son, and heterosexual relations were so important...why didn't his son marry a woman? And besides that, wasn't Joseph (his earthly father) married to Mary??

Well said.