Annie-

you have got to be kidding me.

an amendment stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting past the house and senate, much less the states.

this vomit coming from the bush is nothing but a pathetic attempt at pandering to the extreme right wing religious fruitbats that he is at risk of alienating because they hate homosexuals and all they stand for.

think about it for a few minutes, and consider the fundamental rights that all men and women should enjoy.. this is not about giving anyone anything new, it's about realizing that some things just should be.

do you realize that the amendment that the fucking idiot in the whitehouse proposes is the only the second one ever that would restrict the rights of american citizens? oh and the other one was repealed when folks realized that the temperance movement was based in religion and not really as popular as they lead the nation to believe.

you've tosses some gems out in the past Annie, and i know your intentions here are honorable, but i think you are giving lil shrubbie way too much credit here. this is all about creating a litmus test where voters will be pushed toward making a choice in the november election based on their religious beliefs. just watch, abortion issues will be next.

this move might get a few move votes for bush, but i think it will galvanize the opposition who will see the bigger picture as a man who does not really care about much other than his chances for re-election and he is willing to rape the constitution to get it.

"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal"

ya- i'm barkin at you.

coyote

Hate to but I have to disagree with ya on this one, but for sightly different reasons than coyote.

The first is I really don't like the idea of tampering with the constitution any further. Let's wait till the bastards read & understand what's in there now. It's already so crowded that senators & reps skip amendments (2nd, 4th, 5th, etc...)& I'd hate to confuse them even further.

Second is I see abso-friggin-lutely nothing - (nothing I say, er.. type)in the constitution that delagates any authority to the feds to tamper in this kind of thing. Adding an amendment justifying federal intervention would be just another jumping off for them. Hell, I'm still not over the liberties (bad puns always intended) with the commerce clause.

Lastly I don't believe marriage should be the business of ANY government. If I wish to bond myself to one person I do not need or desire state recognition of that. All of the "benefits" conferred by marriage should be left to individuals through contracts. So if I were king for a day (& damn I'd be busy) one of the things i'd do (admittedly close to the last as I'd have a full plate)is stop the state recognition or denial of marriage. It should be left up to the people in question & the religion of their choice (or not a religion as is their choice).

But I wouldn't thank Bush too hard: while he's doing this thing you approve of, he's supporting a rider to a bill in the senate that would extend the assault weapons ban.

Like I said, let's wait till they can read & understand the amendment we have before we start adding to their workload.

damn. in a hurry & couldn't even make sure my name was right...but odds are you'd have know it was me considering how it could have been ended perfectly by a Chief Joseph quote. :)

Well, of course I disagree with you, Annika dear! But actually, I am happy. Bush left open the legitimacy of civil unions (which will disappoint the paleolithic right, which wanted those banned in an amendment too). He will leave his base unsatisfied, and he will infuriate a few soccer moms with gay brothers. Not to mention he lost a few gay Republicans.

If Bush wants to fight a culture war, Democrats win. "Bring it on", indeed.

Annika:

Have you noticed a certain trend of kneee-jerking? I'm not sure why these guys even read your Journal, unless it is to give them a forum to be disageeably in disagreement.

Your analysis hits the right spot with me, but more importantly, in the "fly-over states" where most Angeleno's seldom stop, it resonates completely.

Fortunately for the President (and you and me) the constitution does not require unaminity, but only 2/3 of each House and only 3/4 of the states. That means we can pretty much ignore California, New York, New Jersey and probably Florida, well, at least the Democratic Senators and members of the House.

Blog on... and ignore the noise.

Anika,

In the short time since Bush spoke in favor if the amendment I have read volumes of arguements on both sides of the issue. I have written two posst myself in opposition to the amendment (Hereand here). The argument you are making that this is an issue of judicial restraint and rule if law is the only thing that comes close to justifying the idea.

I don't think in anythng other than an election year would the president support an an amendment on this issue this strongly. But unlike othes, I don't have a problem with that. Coyote wrote

This is all about creating a litmus test where voters will be pushed toward making a choice in the november election based on their religious beliefs

I oppose the idea of this amendment and what it is trying to accomplish. The argument that it is a necessary step to fight rampant judicial activism and preserve the rule of law is the one very thin thread holding together my support for Bush.

I just await the eventual invasion of the Mongrol hoards from the North. Total immersion into decadence always precedes the fall of civilization. ;)

If this is the true reasoning, and it could very well be (among others), then the administration needs to make the message clear. Like Stephen says, this is one rationale that might this palatable to a lot of moderates.

President Bush tends to speak his mind and then follow through, but his message gets lost among the whining and spin coming from his detractors. On this, he's going to have to be blunt to turn aside the nay-saying and hand-wringing.

To succeed in defeating "judicial activism" on this issue, any amendment would have to specifically designate the power to make same sex marriage legal to the federal legislative process, i.e., Congress....otherwise, this "amendment" as proposed is activism by a different name, smelling only slightly more sweet.

Also, "judicial activism" discards established legal precedent and the legislative record...what's to prevent an "activist" judge from disregarding a future enacted FMA that he views as extra- (or un-) constitutional??

Moving from the legal to the social, I've not yet heard a satisfactory answer to George Will's question of more than a year ago on ABC Sunday AM: How does one principally support same sex marriage and not support the marriage of multiple consenting adults? Or consenting adult family members? Do we care? Should "marriage" be just a contractual relationship that co-workers, family members, etc. can enter for tax purposes and other benefits?

I wasn't aware that the U.S. Constitution was still valid anyway. That's funny. Ammend away I guess, even though the Constitution died long ago.

As far as the homo-marriage goes, if they can marry then I can marry my pet asparagus. Yay!

It'll mean about as much.

Your position is well stated with regards to our country becoming an oligarchy, with black-robed lawyers determing what's best for us. Both our state and federal legislators have abandonded their responsibilities with regards to reining in activist judges of all political persuasions. While I personally oppose "gay marriage" on the purely semantic grounds that it's an oxymoronic statement to me(let's face it, the reason people say gay marriage or same-sex marriage is because when someone just says marriage, you automatically think of a man and a woman), I'm perfectly willing to abide by this being determined via the democratic process. Sadly, the will of the people and the laws they've voted for are being deliberately ignored by judges that believe themselves to be the final arbiters of what should and should not be in this country. My opinion is that our legislators should grow spines and use the tools at their disposal to bitchslap these judges into performing their sworn duties. Impeachment should be a rarely used tool. However, if used properly, it would help instill in the judiciary a proper respect for their co-equal branches of government.

"this vomit coming from the bush is nothing but a pathetic attempt at pandering to the extreme right wing religious fruitbats that he is at risk of alienating because they hate homosexuals and all they stand for."

Looks like the string got pulled on our single-celled cliche' machine. Don't worry, those mean old Ashcroft jack-booted thugs still can't stop your dominant from buggering you. And you can still find a groovy DJ in one of the KY Alley West Hollywood clubs to marry you two (for a large fee of course).

Marriage has never been, nor ever will be, a "right" no matter what your feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings are. Pinhead.

hehe

redneck,

i know it's hard for you to understand, but i do love your posts.

you single handedly make a fantastic argument that if a person is a total brainless dumbfuck, he is more likely to be a conservative.

most conservatives that read this blog don't fit anywhere near that label, but it's nice of you to bring that aspect of the conservative party to the table.

your arguments serve as a continual reminder that much of the president's support base comes from people who are far to stupid to think for themselves.

you really should consider an apology to the other good folks who actually contribute to the discussions on this blog, as you really are an embarassment to their cause.

but i sure love seeing you act out. it's comedy, on the web!

:-)

Annie - i'm really sorry about baiting the redneck, it's just so hard to resist giving someone the rope when you just KNOW they will use it.

coyote

Care to offer proof of any of your shallow ad hominems? This may come as a shock but nobody believes anything you say just because you say it. Despite your egregiously inflated opinion of yourself and your so-called arguments you still need to prove. Even you get no pass.

Prove that marraige is, or ever was, a right under the constitution and you can call me a brainless dumbfuck, an embarassment, etc.

Making silly assertions without even attempting to back it up makes you come off as, I don't know, brainless. A dumbfuck? Gallingly shallow and arrogant?

I won't say you are an embarassment. Saying anyone on the left is an embarassment to their cause would be akin to saying water is bad for the ocean because it's too wet.

"How does one principally support same sex marriage and not support the marriage of multiple consenting adults? Or consenting adult family members?"

i've heard that argument, and as JadeGold would say: nice strawman. One can support gay marriage and not support polygamous and incestuous marriage simply by saying so. Drawing a line. Make one legal and the other illegal. The law makes fine distinctions like that all the time.

The better question is whether, by applying the equal protection clause to homosexuals in order to allow gay marriage, must one then open the door to polygamists and incestuous couples?

i know the answer to that question, but let's see if any of you can figure it out.

What equal protection argument? Gays have exactly the same right to marry that straights have -- just not to each other. In San Franscisco, if you are a city worker you can have your sex organs changed out and the public pays for it. You are pandered to by every elected official within 50 miles. I can't offer proof of this, but I understand that gays have the highest income and highest education of any demographic in California. And you Annika, want to compare their "plight" to that of blacks under Jim Crow? That's offensive.

Bring it on indeed. If this election becomes a referendum on gay marriage Bush will win probably 49 states. Thinking Democrats are scared to death of this issue because it is going to be a disaster for them in November. The Dems were starting to show some discipline but now clearly California is now in play for Bush, where he had no chance in hell before.

I have had a crush on Annika since she wrote her first blog on www.soulparking.com. I know we are talking about President Bush here - but there's nothing sexier than a woman who is smart, beautiful, and has bigger balls than ramblin redneck.

Now, I am true redneck. Grew up where the filmed Mississippi Burning. My dad ran a Piggly Wiggly and I bagged groceries. I remember the Klan handing out pamphlets at the intersection before going on to shop for T-shirts at Bargain Town.

And just like then where mixed couples were hiding in the shadows afraid to go out in the street to be heckled. Or heck even me - my first crush in high school was on a black cheerleader. And feeling guilty for it - asking God to remove this sin. But you know - I still had the feeling - and how could it be a sin? Why is it ever wrong to love someone? And isn't God love?

Why the hell if two people who love each other, make a committment to marry - which is so incredibly hard in itself and then go against the goverment,social norms, the majority, go against almost death defying odds - to get a silly piece of paper. Hell, God doesnt need that piece of paper to know you are married.

Because it is the ultimate act of love.

And like during slavery times it was forbidden to marry a slave and from that exploded a Civil War. Over Christmas I visited my best friend Brent who is a funeral director in Montegomery and his two beautiful kids who are mixed and his freakin' gorgeous African American wife. Because you cannot stop an idea whose time has come.

So this isnt about penis and anus or vagina and vagina. If thats what people think this is - you're just like radical redneck.

Its about dying for someone. Sharing your hopes and dreams. Being able to share your life insurance with someone you spent your life with. Not get penalized with extra taxes because you are in love but NOT married. To have proper health insurance for the person you love when they get cancer and cant take care of themselves.

So regardless if you are hetro, gay, Asian, Black, white as radical redneck or me, Romanian, German... There is a feeling the whole world feels: the fear of being alone. The completition of finding your other half.

And what a fucked up world we live in that a GOVERNMENT would attempt to stop someone froming making it official...

Blog on, A, blog on.

Oh I forgot one thing. Annika is for keeping it democratic - I am down with that. Dont want this to become a country of anarchy and not votes.

And another thing no one talks about: you know the stipulation right? I rush to San Fran to get married to the man of my dreams... We fly back to North Carolina and we fall out of love.

The stipulation for divorce is you have to live in the state we married for a year together before being eligilble to get a divorce.

If rednecks who are pushing for this thing to get overturned really wanted to cause pain - let things stand.

There is no greater pain than having to live with someone you utterly hate in a foreign place for a year.

Okay done ramblin.

hey! who is that person using the the redneck's sig?

i know it can't be him because there was no detailed description of horse anatomy,,

anyway, whomever you are, i was looking to find where anyone had mentioned that marriage was a right granted in the constitution.

strange-- first i see it mentioned so was by you..

go figure.

well Annie has mentioned the equal protection clause so i'll assume you believe her.

there is also the UN declaration of human rights that was signed by the US.

so redneck imposter, you win the argument that marriage is not spelled out the constitution proper. i guess it does not matter that no one wants to argue with you about that.

the point that was made is that a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman will indeed be the only active amendment that restricts the rights of american citizens. just to be clear, to ban something means that you restrict someone's right to do that certain something..

actually the more i think about it, the more i like the idea that w has taken this stand.

it will ensure that not one gay person votes for him. ( some actually would have had he not came out in support of this amendment) now i'm fairly certain that more gays will actively work against bush.

a great many centrist voters will walk away from the republican side of the ticket. ( i agree with Annie, while some polls indicate that there is a slight margin in favor of a ban on gay marriage, there are just as many that show the opposite. that coupled with the fact that very few people that i have talked with support the ban, i feel that the there is not nearly the support for this that some might hope for.)

some straw polls of the senate have already shown that there is not nearly enough support there for such an amendment to get through. this will make bush appear weak, right before the election. not a good thing.

i think bush is betting that he can force religious people to toss aside the other issues that may have been important to them in favor of these "faith based" emotional ones. i don't know how wise it is to assume that people will vote against their wallets, or their kid's wallets for that matter.

i hope you are not storing the real redneck away like that guy zed did with the "gimp" in the movie pulp fiction..

i never really did figure out the undertones of that scene. pulp fiction was a great film though.

please let the real redneck out to play soon!

love ya ;-)

coyote

ok now im really confused.. i'm fairly confident that ramblin redneck is a different redneck than the radical redneck OR the radical redneck imposter. sheesh!

anyway..

Annie-

i'm curious how you do propose to get around the multiple marriage and other corner cases that might arinse.

i was trying to think of a reason why i would care if 30 hippies living out in the woods decided to all marry each other. as long as everyone involved was a consenting adult, able to enter into such a contract, who really gives a crap what they do?

sure it's probably a bad idea, frought with all sorts of interpersonal issues, but people should be allowed to make their own choices and live with both the benefits and the consequences..

i feel it's not up to me, you, or the government to decide how anyone lives their life.

that said i'll admit i have no clue how to reconcile the possibilities you mention.

bring it on girlfriend.

coyote

"i hope you are not storing the real redneck away like that guy zed did with the "gimp" in the movie pulp fiction.."

That was pretty funny actually! That's the first interesting thing you've ever wrote.

You still haven't proven shit. The only Equal Protection landmark cases given the highest scrutiny are for Immutable Characteristics (ie. race), not for fetishes for packing fudge and eating box. Sorry, you lose again.

Every time some tiresome activist has tried to get the Supremes to recognize sexual choices as immutable they have fallen flat on their face.

That is one reason we will have legislation explicitly pointing that out. Something like this should never be up to the caprice of 9 individuals even though Bush will eventually get the right 9 in during HIS SECOND TERM.

TYPICAL COYOTE POST:

Shrub is a doo-doo head

KKKonservatives are stupid and I'm so above them although I can't and won't ever offer evidence

Rich are getting richer - Poor are getting poorer

Arf!

:-) (most thought provoking part of post)

Canine Subspecies

radical redneck..

im just curious, with all that legal training you have, how is it that you can only fall back on hate to justify why gays should not be able to marry?

how is it that they harm you by being married?

if you are sooo freaked out about the fudge packers and the box eaters getting married, well the solution is really easy.. don't marry one.

bring out the gimp.

coyote

Excellent Radical Redneck. You got closest to what i'm thinking: immutable characteristics give rise to the equal protection clause.

Now please, take note that i am not saying i endorse the following argument one way or the other. (i don't think i've been misunderstood by so many people so many times as i have been in the last week.) But the courts will use the equal protection clause to compel recognition of gay marriage. Either by saying that the status quo restricts the rights of females to marry females because of an immutable characteristic - being female; and by saying that it restricts the right of males to marry another male because of an immutable characteristic - being male.

Or, the courts could ignore the precedent you alluded to, by saying that indeed, homosexuality is an immutable characteristic that deserves protection under the EPL clause of the 14th amendment. The scientific jury is still out on that question, but that shouldn't matter to an activist court.

Either way, the courts will base an expansion of the definition of marriage on an immutable characteristic.

That is the difference between gay marriage and polygamous/incestuous marriage, which George Will (whom i otherwise respect) conveniently failed to consider when posing his famous rhetorical question.

It will therefore be easy to say: gay marriage okay, polygamy and incest, etc. not okay. The former is protected because what you are is an immutable characteristic, and the latter can be proscribed because the EPL clause doesn't apply to a class of people defined by their "lifestyle choices."

And please don't write back saying "But Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice." i'm aware that there is a debate on that subject. My personal opinion aside, i'm just telling you what the courts will say when the inevitable lawsuits come asking them to allow incest and polygamy pedophilia and bestiality, etc.

My point is, it's a fallacious argument to say that if we have gay marriage, the courts will automatically have to allow all types of non-traditional marriage. No they don't. Not if they don't want to. (But of course, you never know what the 9th circuit might do.)

Finally, i wish Rezdog had read what i wrote a second time before flying off the handle. i never compared the plight of homosexuals to that of blacks under Jim Crow. i understand a lot of gay activists are fond of doing that. i think it's innacurate at best and an insult to the civil rights movement at worst. As Jesse Jackson pointed out:

"The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote,"

"how is it that you can only fall back on hate to justify why gays should not be able to marry?"

Duh! Did you ignore the whole post or are you being deliberately ignorant. I explained how the holding legal precedents DO NOT give someone's sex choices the same protection as thier immutables (race, gender). I use heavy handed language to drive home the point (sorry Annie, homosexuality IS a choice and one can choose not to be). Any "hate" (another leftist buzzword so overused it's become meaningless) you think you see is irrelevant to the argument. To see this takes some critical thinking. Work on it.

If I had a tiny dick and felt compelled to fuck women between the toes, I wouldn't expect special rights due to my fetish. I wouldn't expect someone else's insurance to cover me if I got athletes' cock!

I work in entertainment and media in NYC, I'm sure I have contact (not that kind) with more homosexuals than anyone else here posting. It is not immutable - they vary back and forth, and many just go through a phase. It's hardly the same as race.

"if you are sooo freaked out about the fudge packers and the box eaters getting married, well the solution is really easy.. don't marry one."

To the simple minded and self-centered yes. Unlike leftists I am concerned by what is right and healthy for society and my country as a whole. I am able to understand that some things effect everyone even if it doesn't matter to me. I am able to think outside my tiny, little universe. You should try it sometime.

If I thought like you Al-Queda should get a pass. After all, they didn't kill me or anyone I know. Leave them alone.

BTW Nobody is a bigger fan of box eating than me! Fudge packing? That should be restricted to the doctors office (why do I always see BOTH my doctor's hands on the table during digital exams?)

First off, love the site Annie.

I am sick an tired of those on the other side of the issue saying the religeous right are a bunch of homophobic fanatics. I consider myself a member, but I do not HATE anyone. Just because I believe that, according to the Bible, homosexuality is wrong, does not mean I hate them. I don't believe that homosexuality is any different than any other sin (lying, stealing, adultery). I don't believe you persuade anyone to your side by persecuting them.

I must say that after reading all these comments, my opinion was swayed a little. I will fight to the end to not allow gays to marry, but even if they suceed (and I must concede that they probably will), it won't be true marriage. It will only be state sanctioned, not recognised by God. If and when I get married, that will be God sanctioned as well as state sanctioned, but I really only care what God thinks, not what the state has to say.

According to my beliefs, God created marriage, not for two people of the same sex, but for a mature man and a mature woman. The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. If it wasn't, I sure it would have said so or not mentioned it at all.

If homosexual marriage is permitted, it will just be civil-unions with a different brand. Nothing more than marketing.

I agree Annie, lines should be drawn. There are lines everywhere concerning this issue, and people are stepping over them and asking that they should be moved. What makes you think that once this line is erased NAMBLA (or however their acronym is spelled) won't be advocating to have laws changed so that they can legally have sex with boys, maybe even marry them. Seems pretty off the chart, but I am sure the idea of homosexual marriage was off the chart 30 years ago too.

By the way, you people weaken your arguments by calling each other names. Are you people still in grade school?

Keep up the good work Annika.

redneck-

your quite good with the insults, but you didn't answer the questions.

just how exactly does allowing homosexuals to marry harm anyone?
(and this right and healhty for the society BS is not good enough.)

why is it that you care? details please.

comparing homosexuals to terrorists makes no scense. please elaborate on that one too.

Javaslinger-

your right to believe a bible stops when it infringes on another's right to pursue happiness.

in order to have a case against them, you have to be able to prove harm. it's very difficult to do and everyone whose has tried to do so in the courts before has lost.

please feel free to believe as you please, but don't even begin to assume that because something is right for you, means that others need follow your example.

:-)

coyote

Dear Annika,

Will's question is not a canard:

First, Let's decouple the debate from separatist Utah polygamists and warped incestuous adults and focus on the "marriage benefits as an entitlement" segment of the SS marriage debate, i.e., "We're the victims of discrimination if we can't get hetero-marriage benefits."

A successful daughter's mother is suddenly widowed...after the tragedy and emotional pain wear off, the mom and daughter get "married" in name only... JUST to accrue the tax-related and other benefits....Let's see...they have a strong emotional bond, there's no deviant sexual purpose to the marriage, and it's a way for families to help their own...this can't be less "fair" than SS marriage.

OK, what about 4 downsized coworkers who've been on the same team for years and have developed strong personal (again, nothing weird) bonds...they've been slapped in the face by one of John Edwards's evil "Benedict Arnold CEOs" and getting "married" to them is a benefits partnership construct.

I misplaced the link (and you can play ombudswoman if you like and force me to find it) but there was a recent left/liberal legal forum in your neck/woods, i.e., "Collyvorneea" that discussed strategies on how to refashion the concept of marriage in fashion similar to corporate law, i.e., multiple partnership and membership options.

Normally I reject slippery slope arguments, but SS marriage is the exception to the rule. Do most gays/lesbians who want to be married want Andrew Sullivan-type assimilation? Yes. Are there a committed minority group of gay (and straight) legal radicals who see marriage as antiquated and want to dissolve it? Bet your ass.

That's why your libertarian(ish) stance on this issue is dangerous, because right now you're admiring that admirable horse called "Gay/Lesbian equal rights" that the Greeks just delivered.

Annie,

please don't let the "if your not with us you are against us" party line bother you. it's not new that someone who questions standard party retoric be labled and vilified. it is just part of conservative politics. im sure the dungeons and dragons folks over at dogtown are pooping all over the floor at your "defection"

the good count could only manage way off the wall corner cases to support his argument. take solice in that.

:-)

i adore you for being the last of the "compassionate conservatives".

coyote

"questions party rhetoric....that's part of conservative politics..."

This is the first Coyote since Wile E. who set and then fell victim to his own trap of liberal democratic inclusiveness...

1) Do you mean like pro-life Dem Gov. Casey who was yanked off the stage like The Gong Show at the convention in 1992?

2) Or the "progressive" black reaction to Clarence Thomas?? (Donna Brazile only one of many really tolerant quotes) Or any other black conservative?

3) Or the "traditional" feminist attacks on Camille Paglia?

4) Or the massive hitjob by the "tolerant environmentalists" on Bjorn Lomborg?

5) Or Bernard Goldberg at CBS when it became too thick even for a lifelong LBJ Democrat?

6) Or lifelong pro Bob Arnot let go by NBC for daring to file stories that contradict the Iraq-is-an-unsolvable-mess politburo line?

Yep, those inclusive liberal Democrats.....

"just how exactly does allowing homosexuals to marry harm anyone?"

Not the issue genius, pay attention. The burden of proof is on those who want to change the law. Not those who want to keep it as is. In other words we don't have to answer it.

To answer it anyway it's a fucking abomination. It spits (jizzes) in the face of every major religion upon which the entire ethos of the US was founded. Don't even think of the mythical "seperation of church and state" - all that means is the state can't establish a religion.

"comparing homosexuals to terrorists makes no scense. please elaborate on that one too."

Please try to keep up. I'm not comparing the two, I'm comparing your indifference and moral equivalency of everything that doesn't effect you directly. A stark example to make the point obvious although it still escapes you.

redneck-

all that typing, and you managed again, to say nothing of substance.

you are not going to change my opinion, i am not changing yours.

let's leave it at that, as i have other things to do than listen to your crude crap.

i'll make it a point to sign up 2 more anti-bush voters today, and i'll use your own words to do it.

see ya in november.

coyote

so count, i guess you're admitting that you are acting like a democrat?

so to follow your reasoning, because others have done stupid things in the past, it justifies your doing them now?

i kind of like the idea that open minded conservative are being pushed from the party.
count, you assume that i am in support of all the things that the democrats like. sorry pal. it's not the case, so you can rag on the dems all you like, it won't phase me.

in an ideal world, a real 3rd party can spring out of the corrupt bullshit we have now, a third party from the middle, who will promote the people's right to live as they choose while keeping the books balanced and corporations honest.. ya i know it's utopian, but in the meantime, i'll be doing all i can to keep either party from screwing up the whole ballgame.

peace.

coyote

'yote,

a "pox on both your houses" is fine, but remember your last best shot was H. Ross: He of the "I'll raise the federal gas tax to $2.25 and wipe the deficit out in 2 years" plan.

It will take a serous recession or depression and another billionaire for your third party dream to be realized.

Good luck.

"all that typing, and you managed again, to say nothing of substance."

Wow! The most specious poster in the entire blogosphere says I didn't post anything of substance. Devastating! I must kill myself right now!

You have descended to the playground level of repeating everything said your way since you have nothing else. I have proven ad nauseum that you an empty vessel and all you come back with is "I know you are but what am I?" Sad.

It's almost embarassing watching you. Go back to DU - they might even be impressed.

Coyote,

I am sorry you missed my point. While I would like everyone to agree with my morals, I am not stupid enough to believe as such.

The main reason I commented was the what I said in the opening paragraph: I hate being called a homophobe simply for the fact that I think homosexuality is wrong. I hate no one.

I find it funny thought that those who spew their vile toward President Bush don't think of themselves as hateful, but tolerant, when in reality all they can tolerate is their own opinion. Those of us who invoke are convictions and say we believe something is immoral, we are called intolerant and hateful without as much as a shred of proof. Funny huh?

Annika, from my reading about the 'gay marriage' proponents, they are not just claiming 'equal protection'. They are also trying to use the Loving decision's 'freedom of choice' argument - that is everyone has freedom choice in who they marry. Does that not open the door to choosing multiple people, or people who are your blood relatives? That is using your 'freedom of choice'.

We are commanded to love one another. But we do not have to love (or condone) the actions of others. I think that I am like most "regular americans" in that, I REALLY don't care what the gay and lesbian people do in the privacy of their homes. But, I do not want it shoved down my throat. I do not want to have to watch gay and lesbian couples lock lips in public. And, I do not want to have to explain it to my kids. Most of all, I DO NOT WANT MY KIDS TO THINK THAT THE GAY LIFESTYLE IS NORMAL - it isn't. I do not want sex education to include education about gay sex. That is the road we are traveling down! Please! I don't hate gay people - I love them. But they need to stop pushing for the right to marry. I believe most people (including our beloved President) support Civil Unions. Civil Unions allow gays and lesbians the same benefits as married couples. Why isn't that enough? Why must they insist on changing the definition of marriage? Gay people need tolerance and love from society. But I am afraid that if they keep PUSHING their lifestyle on the rest of us, it may just backfire on them. Whether you like George W or not, he is a decent, God fearing man. That is certainly more than can be said for Mr. Coyote. You know Mr. Coyote, your cause would be much better served if you would not resort to name calling. It is hard to take someone serious when they can't get their point across without foaming at the mouth with hatred.

The poor Democrtats will have to make a decision on same sex marriage and give up some of their Bush bashing air time.

and yes it is the most important issue of this election. Fifty years from now the diffinition of mariage will be remembered as the most important issue of this election.

nike shox
shox shoes
nike shoes shox
nike shox running shoes
nike shoes
shox nz shoes
shox nz
shox torch
torch shoes
nike dream shoes
dream shoes
shox monster shoes
nike shox monster shoes
nike shox nz
nz shoes
shox oz
oz shoes
shox r3
nike shox r3
shox r4
nike shox r4
r4 torch
shox r4 torch
nike shox r5
shox r5
shox tl1
tl1 shox
tl3 nike shox
tl3 shox
nike shox turb
shox turb