exactly.

Not to mention, no one is taking marriage away from anyone...except those against marriage equality!

I really hope people don't think that this woman speaks for all Iowans. She embarasses me.

I'm not sure freedom actually has any meaning when used by people like this. It's just a talisman they like to wave around to ward off all the scary things they can't bring themselves to cope with.

Hurrah from California. We can vote on judges too.

Any wonder why the Judge who wrote the CA Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage (for a few months) RESIGNED recently?

Not to mention Judge Walker who ruled in federal court IS RESIGNING. We can't vote on Walker but Walker knows that the Appellate Court is going to overturn his decision.

This is what happens when judges make law from the bench - IF THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY TO BOOT THEM OUT, THE PEOPLE WILL.

Bravo Iowa. Good job. You're making up for electing Obama and starting a whole movement to steal the nomination from Clinton.

Karen, cheering oppression. HURRAY OPPRESS THE GAYS! And give the boot to anyone that supports the gays! Your fellow citizens.

Secretary Clinton has extended every benefit in the state department that she could to LGBT employees and their partners. The Human Rights Campaign endorsed Clinton not Obama. So, to say oppressing gay people makes up for Clinton losing the primary is kind of a joke. Do you usually kick gay people, and scapegoat them when you're mad at something totally unrelated?

GR, I would suggest that trying to change Karen's mind or 'hitting' her with logic is a sadly, useless endeavor. I've seen her comments many times on NV and they all run the same old arguments, kind of like a broken record.

I'm not trying to change Karen's mind. I'm countering her argument. That's not useless.

Romeo

You think it's a counter? I hardly think so.

Who said anything about suppressing gays?

Judges should NOT be making laws from the bench which is what happened in Iowa.

Since that IS in the constitution (the legislature makes laws - not judges), your argument is bogus.

In fact, some gay guy is on TV saying talking about this very issue. He says that gay people should work to change people's minds, NOT RELY ON THE COURTS. Truer words were never spoken. Please see my other post where I say exactly the same thing as this gay guy on TV.

Yo, Karen – as a gay woman working in Los Angeles: WooHoo from California. We know how to vote our hearts and minds, judges too for that matter – we usually get a pretty decent representation of what being good decent humans should look like at the end of the election day.

Any wonder why you are the Blog chasing hate spewing underling of [likely Fontana, not LA] living here.

This is what happens when surrounding yourself with a largely understanding, compassionate, live-let-live, etc., etc, cadre of good citizen Californians.

Good job California. Good job. You’re making up for the Karen’s of the world.

WBEng

Wow. You are certainly rude especially since you do not know who I am.

Do you feel better now that you have discriminated against a straight person who believes in the constitution?

Based on some of the gay comments I'm getting these days, I am changing my mind about being so equal minded toward gay people because they REFUSE to be equal minded with other people.

PS - That judge in Riverside is going down for messing with the military and it's just a matter of time before the appellate court overturns gay Judge Walker's biased ruling on Prop 8.

That judge in Riverside is going down for messing with the military

Karen, it is against the law to threaten a Federal judge.

That judge in Riverside is going down for messing with the military

I see I was right about you being closer to Fontana....sorry, was that being rude? Not meant to be actually - just observant is all.

Having read a few of your posts above/below/in-around, I now can understand better you're not appreciating my original parity of your post.

And for the record, I'm very equal minded. I am proud my vote is most times with all in mind, not just my special interests, and, I volunteered and served in Iraq with all Americans in mind, even those like you too (so don't hide behind a flag as justification for threatening a federal judge because he did something your military minded self didn't agree with). Oh, and if you decide to join those of us that follow legal means/methods, good luck with the recall election you are going to be working on.

Aren't you clever WBEng? I'll answer. No.

I live in Los Angeles county near the beach.

To confirm, YOU ARE NOT equal minded with your comment about me.

Nonetheless, thank you for your service and apparently you adhered to DADT.

What recall? Who said anything about a recall? You like to make things up. Do you have any opinions based on fact?

And to the peanut gallery, I don't have to do anything to the federal judge. She did it herself. A higher court took the case and STAYED her decision. It's a matter of time before she is re-assigned to Timbuktu for issuing a ruling when the court had ZERO jurisdiction to do so.

There is only one thing I want to make sure you are aware of - after that, I could care less.

I served in the first wave going into Iraq as an imbedded Dept of Defense engineer, responsible for assessing, implementing and overseeing U.S./Coalition reconstruction efforts, and served as an openly gay woman...all in my home Districts Command knew of, and any in my imbedded Command was free to know, should they chose, my sexual orientation, so, I served openly and freely, and did not have to serve under the slap in the face, lacking all human dignity, auspices of DADT.

Karen:

While I am certain I will have no impact on your beliefs in the matter, I would like to point out an inaccuracy in your argument.

The Iowa Supreme Court was not "making laws from the bench". Their ruling was on whether or not the Defense of Marriage act, passed previously by the Iowa legislature, violated the state's constitution, and in fact it does. The Iowa constitution provides that you cannot make an action illegal unless it violates someone else's protected rights, violates a federal law, or impedes the function of the state government. As same-sex marriages do none of these things, it is unconstitutional to make any law preventing them. The Iowa Supreme Court was doing exactly what it was designed to do, make decisions on legal matters and to act as a check system to the Legislative branch of the state government to ensure that no laws they create violate the rights of their citizens. It is not a question of what people's personal opinions are on the matter, and to be honest it's better that way. The law is meant to be impartial, fair and untainted by individual ideas, morals or beliefs. If it was made subject to everyone's personal beliefs, we would soon find ourselves buried under a swarm of bizarre and ludicrous proposals. For example, I don't agree with eating applesauce on pork chops, I find it fundamentally wrong and thoroughly disgusting, but does that mean they should make a law banning the eating of applesauce on pork chops? Of course not, that would be silly and would certainly limited other people's enjoyment of eating pork chops. So how can they justify upholding a law banning gay marriage when the main argument from people against it is simply that they find it distasteful and disgusting?

Federal judges are appointed, not elected... the dingbat in California is safe from reprisal for not understanding federal law.

God Jamie the hell is your problem? Grow up seriously. I think you're in danger of hemorrhaging.

wee_vet_student: Well said. But probably lost on the target audience, I'm afraid.

You took the words right out of my mouth. First, why do I need to know who you like to woo-hoo with to determine what basic HUMAN rights you should get.

Second, what I find funny about this is that I know homosexual couples that have stayed with ONE person throughout their entire courtship, maybe 10 or 20+ years. Compare that to the "biblical correct" heterosexuals who like to play around with TWO people and have their documented marriage done in 1-5 years but then turn around and have the nerve to say gay marriage is immoral.

My ass. I'm sick of all those hypocrites.

Good point -- I would say sexual orientation, though, since it is not a preference, per se, however.

@Jasmine: I just would like to steal the term "woo-hoo" as used in your post for future use. :)

Thanks for the info, Grant.

They already run those ads in Michigan.

Or you do it the old fashioned way like Blankenship in WV:

http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=4DE5E684B138452C6145C47923321B4D?diaryId=1554

As another Iowan, Grant, the panel is consisted of primarily moderates and the Governor will choose from those laid out. There are already names on the panel's list and not one is a liberal, again. There are a couple moderates though and more conservatives, so i heard at the Steve King/Republican party last night, here in Sioux City on 3rd street.

Same sex marriage is going to be overturned here in Iowa.

Could you ban the haters, Laura?

@Laura

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101031/NEWS09/10310341/-1/AMES/Culver-could-nominate-alternate-justices

Without necessarily working it through in detail, I believe I always thought that the state's interest in marriage was to encourage people to make some commitment to stay together before producing children and then to remain together after they had them. So when courts began ruling that same-sex couples were denied equal protection of the law by not being allowed to marry it seemed very odd to me. There was so obviously a real difference. Two men are not merely an incidentally infertile couple. Would a court require an insurance company to pay for a woman's prostate exam?

But in talking to people about these ideas, I'm finding that most people-especially most younger people--see the partnership aspect of marriage as primary and the having kids part as more incidental. If that is what marriage is, then clearly same-sex couples, being capable of the same bonds of affection and habit as opposite-sex couples, should have the same standing before the law.

Ron

I hear what you are saying but God forbid that I agree a 20 year old knows more about the world and life than I do.

When I think about my 23 year old niece and her viewpoints, I think about how one day, her opinions will most likely match mine when she's older.

Why? Because I was a crazy 20 year old too once.

You hit the nail on the head to a certain degree but your characterization of how people view marriage is a bit off. Marriage has been between a man and a woman for CENTURIES. Your post makes it seem that the definition of marriage is a constantly changing definition. It's not.

Just because couples can make babies in a test tube does not give cause to change the definition particularly when religious groups vehemently oppose it.

Actually, yes, the definition of marriage has been constantly changing. Until recently, there was the legal doctrine of coverture, which held that a woman's legal identity was subsumed by her husband's upon marriage. Or, to put it another way, marriage was once defined by the woman becoming in effect the property of the man. And it was once held in the US that if a female American citizen married a foreign national that she automatically forfeited her citizenship. The last vestiges of coverture were, I think, eliminated in the US in the 1970s. And so, there's one fairly radical 'redefinition' of marriage and one occurring in my lifetime. I say 'radical' because coverture was once deemed essential to the very idea of marriage and reformers like Karl Marx assumed that if women were to achieve social and political equality marriage would have to be abolished. And yet, coverture is gone and the institution of marriage is still with us. Changed, but still present.

That, of course, is only one example. To that could be added the removal of marriage from the sacramental realm to the legal and the evolution of the concept of marriage for love. And then there's the matter of the allowability marriages between different races, or religions, or social classes.

Nothing is ever the same from one generation to the next. Only blinkered nostalgia deludes some people into thinking everything was stable (and wonderful) until their own time when suddenly everything changes and goes to hell.

religious folks, scare tactics, lack of education. those are my guesses

Don't be reductionist. There are 'religious folks' on both sides of the marriage issue.

Umm, I don't think that's the point at all. This woman is bat-@!$%# crazy. Seriously? Allowing gay people to marry is "taking away" her "right to marriage"??? Huh?? And somehow this would lead to taking away her guns and her property??? Holy craziness.

How does same sex marriage affect you and bother you so much? Let freedom reign.

Nothing is wrong with letting people vote on the Judges. It's is the crazy ass-backwards argument they are using to say that these judges should be removed.

Because if we put civil rights up to a vote, no minority group would ever get their civil rights. If civil rights were put to a vote, we would probably still have segregated facilities in the South.

The problem is that their "freedom" to vote on the right to take rights away from other people is unconstitutional. And immoral. And unfair.

Because civil liberties should never be regulated. DUH!

Because our civil rights are given to "we the people" in the Constitution. If "the people" could vote on civil rights, women and African-Americans would still be disenfranchised.

What is wrong with letting the people vote on other people's constitutional rights? You are joking, right? If not, you need to go back to 7th grade and get out your Constitution and re-do your civics lessons.

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” - Thomas Jefferson

This means you cannot vote away the rights of a minority group.

How do you think the "people" would've voted on slavery or women's rights? It's not for the people to decide who can be have freedom under the Constitution.

@onemouthoneworld and @mykelb This isn't about whether they should be allowed to vote for or against marriage equality. I'm all for voting if it's an option. Unfortunately the majority voting against the minority always has the same outcome. What this is really about is how this woman (and many others like her) is willing to sacrifice someone else's (gay minority group) freedoms and their pursuit of happiness for her own so-called freedoms. Last time I checked gay marriage becoming legal wouldn't cancel out straight marriage. It isn't a science fiction novel about when matter and anti-matter meet. Those judges saw a chance to grant equality to those that deserve it and it didn't harm anyone. If you are a legal citizen and you work, put food on the table for your family, pay taxes like everyone else you should be allowed to enjoy the rights of everyone else. It's not asking for a lot...just to be treated the same, like human beings.

At the time that the Civil Rights Act was passed, a majority of residents living in Southern states OPPOSED equal consideration for African Americans in areas of hiring, firing, and promotion. They also opposed an equal system for voter registration, even resorting to making applicants guess how many gumballs were in a jar in order to qualify (and hence the Voting Rights Act of 1965).

I guess the only legitimate point I can consider is the contention of "legislating from the bench," but the judges did not write any new laws (nor can they). Judges were asked to hear cases in which citizens alleged (ironically, considering the blustering of those on the opposite side) that the denial of equal marriage rights goes against the Iowa Constitution's promise that all its citizens are entitled to equal protection of the laws. I'm not an attorney, but it sounds like they considered the question relative to similar claims (like gender bias) but found that the prohibition against gay marriage could not withstand judicial scrutiny (that is, there's no compelling case that you can make to support the denial of that right to gays and lesbians).

If that is true, if we try to consider other opposition to gay marriage, in each case, it does not present a compelling case that would justify denying gays and lesbians that right. People who have strong religious beliefs, for example, would still have the right to refuse to marry gays and lesbians in their churches, so it does not interfere with religious freedom (gay marriage is a civil right, NOT a religious one). Arguments about potential harm done to children have not been proven-- in fact, the opposite has (gay and lesbian parents lose benefits, special tax rates for married couples, and so on, in a way that sometimes impacts their children badly). And, while it is upsetting to some that marriage has been "redefined," it does not require that any citizen practice the new definition if they don't want to... straights still get to marry straights, oddly enough.

So when the state is presented with a case that relates to equal protection, and gays and lesbians can show that they have not enjoyed the equal protection of the laws, what else can a judge do when presented with the question of whether a Constitutional right was violated?

Every single homosexual person in this country, of course, can get married. They have that right. As a heterosexual, I also have that right.

They simply can't get married to someone of the same sex....and I, as a heterosexual, can't either. We have EXACTLY the same rights.

Quite simply, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to change the definition of marriage. It doesn't mean that they 'hate gays' (despite the demonizing from the left) - they simply don't want to radically change one of the cornerstones of civilization...

You can't let people vote on taking rights away from other people. Would you let slavery be reinstated if enough people in Iowa (or anywhere) voted it back in?

When I think about "cornerstones of civilization," I think of things like organized political systems; physical accomplishments that influenced humankind (architecture, astronomy, rockets, infrastructure might all fit in here); movement of humankind to new regions; and so on.

I don't classify marriage as a cornerstone of civilization, and wonder why others do. Yes, the practice has existed for some time... but unlike standard "cornerstone" definitions, marriage is not the basis of success of any of the major impacts that have helped societies improve over time.

And if you want to keep thinking that marriage should be classified as a "cornerstone of civilization" only because it has existed for a very long time, then why don't people focus with similar vigor on things like pet ownership? bathing? dwelling in houses? If that sounds a bit absurd, you might begin to appreciate that GLBT people also find the insistence on marriage as a straight-only experience absurd. After all, gays and lesbians live together and form lasting relationships... but it's about time that they also get the special rights that states give to straights just for affirming that commitment in public or to the state.

I love the argument that gay people aren't discriminated against because they can still marry straight people. Ironically, it's one of the same arguments used against allowing bi-racial marriages: You can still get married, just not to anyone you actually love. It makes absolutely no sense. And so much for that "sanctity" part. But it sounds so much better than just admitting to being a garden-variety bigot , huh?!

Voting for judges, well, OK. Voting on rights, no. That's why they're called RIGHTS.

What's wrong with LETTING people vote on this issue is just that. My rights ARE NOT UP FOR A PUBLIC VOTE. You can vote on my life so long as you allow me to vote on yours. Fair..? Not so much...

Betsy, liberals LOVE to use the historic exclusions of, say, bi-racial marriages to highlight their defense of same-sex marriage.

The main difference - and this is key - is that there are no key differences between ethnicities - yet there are TREMENDOUS differences between the sexes. Same-sex marriage would not only redefine marriage, it would essentially say that gender is unimportant in the definition of one of our most basic institutions...and most Americans recognize that that's a road that they don't want to go down.

I'm sure that that argument you won't find persuasive (it's clearly more fun to label someone a 'bigot,' right?) - but I thought I would offer it, because I desire clarity far more than agreement...

"After all, gays and lesbians live together and form lasting relationships... but it's about time that they also get the special rights that states give to straights just for affirming that commitment in public or to the state."

A study was done in Massachusetts earlier this year found that the male partners in over 1/2 of the 'marriages' conducted in that state felt no sexual exclusivity to their partners. They were actively involved sexually with multiple other men.

If that's what some people want to call 'marriage' - then it's little wonder most Americans are unwilling to radically redefine the institution...

Gender and sex is not the same. So same-gender marriage is not illegal per se, but some two-gender-marriages are illegal. And the differences between the sexes vary greatly from individual to individual.

You are labeled a bigot because you are one.

johnlorican I believe the study you are referring to was not conducted in Massachusetts, and did not focus on married gay couples.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

It would be interesting to compare this to data on how many men in heterosexual relationships step out on their partners.

Your argument is that we should be enforcing gender roles? Woooowww. I'll make sure to go to the kitchen and bake you a cake, husband. Geeze. We're in the 2000's, catch up please.

@Dutchie6: It's called "Lying for Jesus".

Johnlorican - if a gay man or a lesbian marries someone of the opposite sex, wouldn't you consider that a sham marriage? The defense used by opponents to gay marriage is that we need to protect the "sanctity of marriage." Not sure how such an arrangement would meet that definition except visually.

I've never understood any of this, but then again I'm not religious. I know two gay couples who have each been together between 20-25 years, and I simply couldn't care less if they were married. Neither could most people I know, but I guess that makes us "typical liberals" (or human beings who just mind their own business).

The main difference - and this is key - is that there are no key differences between ethnicities - yet there are TREMENDOUS differences between the sexes. Same-sex marriage would not only redefine marriage, it would essentially say that gender is unimportant in the definition of one of our most basic institutions...

And here, I think, is the reason that same-sex marriage scares the conservatives so much. it's not just about homophobia, it's about gender, and gender-roles and heteronormativity. because if we move towards understanding that gender - what it means to be "masculine" or "feminine" - is nothing more than a social construct to keep people in boxes and to help maintain the status quo of power (ie something that rich, white men have the most of) than everything in their world really does come toppling down.

The fear of being labeled gay/lesbian is used to keep straight folks in line too - if we can redefine gender, they don't have that threat to hang over people's heads anymore.

Yes, thank you for clarifying this for me Johnlorican. But since you're apparently an authority on how gender roles should be properly used to define what is or isn't an acceptable marriage that the majority of Americans will sanction, maybe you can help me with a terrible dilemma I have. I have some straight friends (one is a Man and one is a Woman). But The Man stays home to care for the children and The Woman goes out to work every day. She even wears pants sometimes. Does this mean they are married or not? They clearly don't fit into your definition of what is necessary to define a real marriage, so I'm not sure. And to complicate matters, they were married in Massachusetts of all places. Gay people are allowed to marry there, so does that mean they're really gay? Should I advise them to go have an affair so they'll fit in? And if so, which one of them should have it? Please advise.

Betsy, when you offer up a comment to be taken seriously, we can continue our conversation...

Take care.

it's not just about homophobia, it's about gender, and gender-roles and heteronormativity. because if we move towards understanding that gender - what it means to be "masculine" or "feminine" - is nothing more than a social construct to keep people in boxes and to help maintain the status quo of power (ie something that rich, white men have the most of) than everything in their world really does come toppling down.

My gosh, where do you get this stuff....?

Absolutely NOTHING I've communicated relates to ANYTHING in this comment.

They simply can't get married to someone of the same sex....and I, as a heterosexual, can't either. We have EXACTLY the same rights.

And when gay marriage is legal nationwide, you too will have the right to marry someone of the same sex! MORE equal rights for everyone! Mwah! You're welcome.

MechTrek (and others), if same-sex marriage should be made legal - and that it truly IS irrelevant what gender makes up the marriage - is there ANY reason we should stop at two people who desire to get married?

Why not three?....four?....how about a marriage between, say, (2) men and (3) women?...how about (4) men and (2) women?...and so on.

If this is all about discrimination - then why on earth would we want to discriminate against any grouping of people who desire to get married to one another? I would think a homosexual, who rests on the foundation of non-discrimination, would certainly NOT want to discriminate against any mulitiple of people who want to tie the knot....

...and I am dead serious with my questions.

Same-sex marriage would not only redefine marriage, it would essentially say that gender is unimportant in the definition of one of our most basic institutions...and most Americans recognize that that's a road that they don't want to go down.

"Prosecutors in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were primarily concerned with maintaining the sanctity of marriage, which was for the state much more than a simple contract. Miscegenation undermined legitimate marriage by making a mockery of the ordered and separate white family and by threatening to produce an unthrifty mongrel race that would inevitably fail."

(http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/20.2/novkov.html)

Oh, but there are differences, are there? Yes, there are. In vocabulary. Not in argument.

Oh, and--

Same-sex marriage would not only redefine marriage, it would essentially say that gender is unimportant in the definition of one of our most basic institutions...

--were you expecting this? You're exactly right. That's the point, and you should be scared, b/c it's coming.

the differences between the sexes are huge. As an American male, I will have far more in common because of my nature with, say, a man in Russia - whom I've never met - than a woman who lives across the street from me.

You make straight marriage sound like an interspecies pairing. If you have so much in common with other men, you should be jumping at the chance to marry one instead of being saddled with that mysterious being called "woman."

MechTrek (and others), if same-sex marriage should be made legal - and that it truly IS irrelevant what gender makes up the marriage - is there ANY reason we should stop at two people who desire to get married?

These types of relationships already exist. They haven't brought about society's downfall.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=polyamory&btnG=Google+Search

WE CAN'T LET THE GAYS GET MARRIED!!!!!! If the gays all get married then they will bring about God's wrath on the Earth! And when God's wrath comes it will be in the form of an asteroid bearing with it a virus! And that virus will turn people into zombies!!! Of course not everyone will become a zombie so those who survive will have to go underground and build robots to fight off the zombies above ground. But of course, as is the nature of hippie liberalism, the zombies will evolve and robots will upgrade. AND THEN DO YOU KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN?!?!?!?!?! THE ZOMBIES AND ROBOTS WILL START DATING! And once they start dating they will demand marriage equality! And I for one am vehemently OPPOSED to robombie sexuals! Robombie sexuals will change the roles long since established between zombies and robots and devalue the sanctity of marriage! SO IT IS CLEAR WE MUST BAN THE GAYS FROM GETTING MARRIED SO THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE ROBOMBIE SEXUALS!!! Remember all it's about the children! Won't somebody PLEASE think about the children?!

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Rombisexual sounds like someone attracted to rhombuses. Can we be defined by our geometric shape preference?

Q:Would that make johnlorican a square?

A: no, b/c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdcHzquaMh8

Labels are for cardboard cubes and tin cylinders!

Don't worry about it Johnlorican. The truth is that we all know the reason that you've got such a huge emotional investment in something that as a "heterosexual man" will not affect you in the slightest. Or, will it? Don't worry, we still won't hate you, though!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Take care!

I prefer trapezoids. I like to say trapezoid. Zoid. Nee!

WE CAN'T LET THE GAYS GET MARRIED!!!!!! If the gays all get married then they will bring about God's wrath on the Earth! And when God's wrath comes it will be in the form of an asteroid

God's wrath will come in the form of an asteroid? But I was told it the Destroyer would come in the form of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man!

Nee!

What is, "The knights who say?" Alex.

It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

And after the spanking, the GAY SEX!

"Because if we put civil rights up to a vote, no minority group would ever get their civil rights. If civil rights were put to a vote, we would probably still have segregated facilities in the South."

Exactly right! That is the reason. The majority NEVER HAS and NEVER WILL vote to give rights to minorities -- that is the problem with majority rule, which is why the founders of our government put in checks to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

The reason why I put the robombie joke in there is because the logic he is using is the same. The truth is people are terrified of having to accept that gender stereotypes and gender roles don't matter. This is heteronomism at it's best, but there is also an undercurrent of Christian values to this dance. Now I am not implying that all of those who're opposed to gay marriage are opposed on Christian religious grounds. This is one of those instances where, because the majority of Americans are Christian, our laws and our views are shaped socially by the majority presence of that faith, even if we as individuals don't adhere to said faith. Christianity very clearly states that gender roles are supposed to be played within marriage. Specifically, the Bible reinforces the idea that women are to be submissive to their husbands and other male figure heads- such as the ministry (although this ladder interpretation varies depending on denomination). Technically speaking (again depending on what denomination we're talking about) women aren't supposed to participate in leadership roles. Socially we have conditioned ourselves to adhere to this belief, even if as individuals we partake in a different faith or no faith at all. Those who are most vehement against marriage equality are also those who are most vehement against feminism and equal rights for women. Those religious groups who spend most of their time preaching against gays, like Focus on the Family, also spend a considerable amount of time railing against women equality. The belief is that gays and women have destroyed our country. While you may not as an individual adhere to this belief on religious grounds, it ends up transcending into our collective social consciousness and then manifests itself in the form of things like marriage being between 2 individuals of opposite sex, abortion being immoral, sex before marriage being immoral, etc, etc. There is no logical argument a person can come up with for why same sex marriage should be banned. All arguments against same sex marriage adhere to one of the following: ad hominem attacks, strawmanarguments, or slippery slope arguments. The fact is same sex marriage threatens gender roles, which upsets those that want to believe marriage is about submission of women to men and not about compatibility and love between two people. It flies in the face of our conditioned way of thinking and in the face of our majority faith. Hence why I also joked earlier that this position has more to do with a male wanting his wife to cook for him, clean up after him, do everything he says, and shut up when he tells her to. It isn't about marriage- it's about male ego. Also can we please stop calling it gay marriage? There's no difference between a union between people of the same gender as the union between people of opposite gender. All of it is marriage =) Adding the "gay" in front of it unintentionally feeds the bias that somehow what gays are asking for is egregious.

Gender is unimportant. If women are equal to men, then women should be allowed to marry women just as men do and men should be able to marry men as women do.

As a lesbian, I don't have the same rights as a straight man because I can't legally marry my wife even though I'm a way better spouse for my wife than any man could be.

3 snaps.

Also...1+1=2 regardless of the gender of the 1s. However 2 =/= 3 or 4 or 5 and corporations are not people.

@johnlorican - Do you support the repeal of our divorce laws? If not, why? If the "sancitty of marriage" is so important to you, why don't you do everything possible to make sure that marriages last for eternity, like God designed when he created man (around, oh, 500 years ago, right?).

After all, what ruins the sanctity of marriage more than the ending of one?

MechTrek, Mickey Mouser, Grrrl Romeo - you are my people. I haven't had this much fun talking about gender roles and civil rights since college - and those discussions never included the zombie apocalpse, which, in my opinion, makes any conversation that much more awesome.

oh, and in response to:

My gosh, where do you get this stuff....?

Absolutely NOTHING I've communicated relates to ANYTHING in this comment.

I'm quoting from your post, dude.

@John: I know this is late in the game, but I have to ask: I would love to know which differences between the sexes are so TREMENDOUS that same sex marriage can't possibly be legalized. This doesn't appear to have been addressed yet, and I am quite curious as to what the answer will be, because this is the 21st century last time I checked, and the division of labour isn't quite as sex-segregated as it used to be.

You also mentioned that gay couples are supposedly more promiscuous and less faithful than straight couples. The thing is, they aren't; they're just more honest about it, to themselves, and to their partners. Conservative estimates place the rate of extra-martial affairs at 60% for men and 40% for women. So don't think for a second that straight couples are any more moral or faithful than gay couples, or that adultery and open relationships aren't just as commonly found in the straight community. The only difference is that their private sex lives aren't up for scrutiny, judgement, or a vote.

You also invoked the slippery slope: what is a guy is allowed to marry 3 women? Or 4? Or 5? My stance? Let them. As long as they are all of age, have consented, and aren't being pressured or abused, then who the hell are we to judge them and their family? How does it affect me? How does it hurt me or my situation? It doesn't. We don't need the "one man, one woman" restriction to keep us in line, or to keep our society from collapsing. Those days are gone, and we are better than that.

So don't think for a second that straight couples are any more moral or faithful than gay couples, or that adultery and open relationships aren't just as commonly found in the straight community. The only difference is that their private sex lives aren't up for scrutiny, judgement, or a vote.

C'mon, now. People stray; a high percentage of married men commit adultery (smaller percentage of married women) - but, as we all know, it's shunned because it represents moral failure; it's not celebrated or accepted. The idea that the number of 'open relationships' in heterosexual marital relationships equals what, apparently, is found in 'married' homosexual relationships is blatantly dishonest.

My point is that over 50% (!) of 'married' homosexual men in Massachusetts not only believe that NOT being faithful to their 'spouses' is no big deal - it's acceptable within their circle - and NOT considered moral failure. The very notion that within straight society, over half of all marriages involve partners who are having routine multiple sexual relations with their neighbors down the street is crazy.

You also invoked the slippery slope: what is a guy is allowed to marry 3 women? Or 4? Or 5? My stance? Let them. As long as they are all of age, have consented, and aren't being pressured or abused, then who the hell are we to judge them and their family?

Exactly. When you redefine marriage, it ceases to mean anything anymore. Why not have any three, ten - or fifty - people, who desire to get married to each other, get married?

Common sense dictates that this is a prescription for chaos. Marriage traditionalists are more motivated by the destruction of the institution than any supposed 'hatred' of homosexuals.

Dennis Prager, a talk-show host, and one of the most articulate and clarifying voices on some of these issues, has written several columns on marriage/same-sex issues, etc.

I only include it because Prager's views mirror my own - and he can articulate those views much better than I can....

'Why Activists Connect Men in Dresses to Same-Sex Marriage
Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Most Americans are aware that gay activism rarely presents itself as a movement solely for the rights of gays. For example, the acronym for the gay rights movement is "GLBT," meaning Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender.

Interestingly, few people ever ask about the "T." What do transgendered have to do with gays? How and why are they connected by activists, gay and straight, on the Left? Strictly speaking, gays have no more in common with transgendered people than straights do.

To understand the answer is to understand much of what animates the Sexual Left.

The aim of GLBT is not merely that society not persecute gays and accept them as equal fellow citizens. If it were, the movement could largely disband. The battle for acceptance of gay people has largely been won. And deservedly so: The persecution of people for being sexually attracted to the same sex has been as morally wrong as it has been consistent. I am among the majority of Americans, and presumably non-Americans, who still hold to the male-female sexual ideal and who seek to retain the man-woman definition of marriage. But I fully recognize there have always been individuals who are no more capable of sexual attraction to the opposite sex than men like me are capable of being sexually aroused by the same sex. They should not be ridiculed, let alone persecuted, for their sexual orientation.

And few people, conservative or liberal, have any trouble accepting a transsexual, i.e., someone who has surgically changed his or her sex.

But what does any of this have to do with the transgendered, i.e., people who do not psychologically identify themselves with their biological sex, who act as if they were a member of the opposite sex, and who have not changed their biology? Why does the Left include the transgendered in its activism on behalf of gays?

The latest example occurred this month in New York State when Attorney General Andrew Cuomo forced American Eagle Outfitters to rescind its right to enforce a dress code among its employees. This code included a ban on male employees from wearing dresses or other women's clothing and a ban on women employees from dressing as men.

To the Left, this is just another example of fighting discrimination -- how dare society ask men who prefer to wear women's clothing not to do so at work? As New York Times columnist Frank Rich recently wrote with regard to changing the definition of marriage to include members of the same sex, Americans regard all this with a "shrug."

Likewise, last year, the civil rights commission of the State of Maine asked that no Maine schools should insist that biological males use only boys' or men's rooms in schools. From elementary school on, every student in Maine should be allowed to determine if he feels male or female, and enter whichever bathroom matches this self-definition.

The Maine commission also called for a ban on schools from enforcing gender divisions in sports teams, school organizations and locker rooms. It says forcing a student into a particular room or group because of his or her biological gender amounts to discrimination.

On the Left, few, if any, changes in the sexual arena are worthy of more than a shrug. Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are worth changing the nation's and world's economy over. But redefining marriage from male-female to same-sex, forcing companies to retain male employees who cross-dress at work and ending gender-specific teams and bathrooms in schools -- these are not worth a shrug.

But the gender-definition of marriage and the transgender issue are actually very big deals.

In his just-published book, "How Pleasure Works," Yale Professor of Psychology Paul Bloom, described by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, as "among the deepest thinkers and clearest writers on the science of mind today," writes:

"Freud claimed 'when you meet a human being, the first distinction you make is 'male or female' and you are accustomed to making the distinction with unhesitating certainty.' This is true for me at least; I get e-mails from strangers with foreign names and when I can't tell whether the sender is a man or a woman, it is oddly unsettling. It shouldn't matter -- I have no intention of mating with them -- but it does. When we see a baby in a diaper, the first question that many of us ask is: Is this a boy or it is a girl?"

So, then, why the "T" in GLBT?

Because the Left seeks to obliterate the distinction between men and women. This distinction is considered to be a social construct. That is why, to this day, despite all the scientific evidence (as if that were needed) proving how different male and female brains are, many Leftwing academics still argue that boys play with trucks rather than with dolls because of sexist socialization; and girls play with dolls because of socialization.

And that is why, on the Left, changing the definition of marriage is only worth a shrug. Since there are no inherent differences between men and women, what difference could it possibly make whether a man marries a man or a woman, or whether a woman marries a man or a woman? Or if children have two fathers, two mothers, or a father and mother?

For those of us who believe that the male-female distinction is vital to civilization, the Left's attempts to erase this distinction are worth fighting against. For those who see no purpose in maintaining this distinction, its demise is worth no more than a shrug.'

@johnlorican:

The main difference - and this is key - is that there are no key differences between ethnicities - yet there are TREMENDOUS differences between the sexes. Same-sex marriage would not only redefine marriage, it would essentially say that gender is unimportant in the definition of one of our most basic institutions...and most Americans recognize that that's a road that they don't want to go down.

Fine. Then don't go down it. Marry someone of the opposite sex. But how do you justify prohibiting others from exercising a basic freedom? Because you don't like the idea?

but, as we all know, it's shunned because it represents moral failure; it's not celebrated or accepted.

It seems as if there is no problem in Republican circles accepting the affairs of Sanford, Ensign, Vitter, McCain, Gingrich etc. etc. etc. They sure aren't getting shunned either!

Please source your claim that:

My point is that over 50% (!) of 'married' homosexual men in Massachusetts not only believe that NOT being faithful to their 'spouses' is no big deal - it's acceptable within their circle - and NOT considered moral failure

Until I can read this "study" you keep trotting out, I will consider your statements to be baseless.

@john It really does take a lot of energy to be a bigot. You forgot to rail against feminism, which is really the force of the movement against binary gender.

The reason for the "LGBT" is it's a coalition. Because the root of transphobia and homophobia is sexism and there's a lot of intersectionality in homosexuality and gender variance.

Plus, straight cisgender folks tend to think of LGBT people as all the same anyway. Not only is gender a social construct, but so too is sexual orientation. If you marginalize people, they will of course band together. Human nature. If you treat people who share a set of characteristics differently, then you create a class.

There are differences between men and women...and there are differences between men and men, and women and women. Gender is a spectrum, not binary. That means gender roles aren't compulsory. The patriarchy is a relic and outdated institution. Women are already wearing pants. Why can't men wear dresses? Why try to control other people's bodies? Where's the individual freedom?

I am not a statistic. I'm a person. A citizen....not some abstract idea. Not all gays are into polyamory and it doesn't make sense to deny a whole class certain rights because you disapprove of some. I truly don't care how other people conduct their relationships. Polygamy has nothing to do with me. You're just trying to stigmatize gay people. Just throw every taboo at the homos and see what sticks.

Denying one group of people rights because you fear of some other group acquiring rights is unethical. People said if they gave women rights, next the homosexuals would want rights. Of course they were right. But would you deny women rights to stop the gays? Progress happens, you can only slow it down. I don't see why I should have to argue for polygamy when I'm fighting for homogamous marriage. They're two separate issues.

I believe this is the study being referred to, note it was not done in Massachusetts and it did not focus on married gay couples.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Because if we put civil rights up to a vote, no minority group would ever get their civil rights. If civil rights were put to a vote, we would probably still have segregated facilities in the South.

I do not agree with you. I was born in 1960, the dawn of the television age. In fact, I was born on the day they had the second presidential debate ever on television.

I also saw racism on television. That is what bothered me. It was not fair to me that people were bullied because of their race.

Fast forward to grad school where I studied television and I studied news reports from the civil rights era. When Americans saw black people being hosed down like dogs on the evening news, believe me, that is what prompted them to change their myopic views.

Not to mention, black people were serving in the war. A white person is only too happy to be saved by a fellow black soldier and vice versa.

That is how racism is eliminated. A judge ruling from the bench will not change a thing anyway. Not to mention, it's not their job to make law from the bench.

lol Dennis Prager wigging out.

@John:

"C'mon, now. People stray; a high percentage of married men commit adultery (smaller percentage of married women) - but, as we all know, it's shunned because it represents moral failure; it's not celebrated or accepted. The idea that the number of 'open relationships' in heterosexual marital relationships equals what, apparently, is found in 'married' homosexual relationships is blatantly dishonest.

My point is that over 50% (!) of 'married' homosexual men in Massachusetts not only believe that NOT being faithful to their 'spouses' is no big deal - it's acceptable within their circle - and NOT considered moral failure. The very notion that within straight society, over half of all marriages involve partners who are having routine multiple sexual relations with their neighbors down the street is crazy."

So being unfaithful is okay as long as you have the decency to regard it as a "moral failure"? The problem is that an overwhelming number of people in heterosexual unions are making a promise to be monogamous; a promise that, statistically, most of them don't keep. If your statistic is accurate, what it means is that more than 50% of gay couples are being honest with each other that they can't stay monogamous forever, but they want to stay partners for the rest of their lives. They want their marriages to last, but they also realize that they can't make the promise of monogamy, so they negotiate another arrangement that they can stand by. I don't see any "moral failure" in that.

@John:

"Exactly. When you redefine marriage, it ceases to mean anything anymore. Why not have any three, ten - or fifty - people, who desire to get married to each other, get married?

Common sense dictates that this is a prescription for chaos. Marriage traditionalists are more motivated by the destruction of the institution than any supposed 'hatred' of homosexuals."

If redefining marriage meant that it ceased to have meaning, marriage would have been discarded in my country 5 years ago. But it hasn't been discarded. It is still important to people, and changing its definition to include other types of relationships won't cause the chaotic break down of the institution; as a society, we are better than that. We don't need to be told what kind of relationships we need to have to ensure that our institutions don't go careening off a cliff. We already largely accept that gay people and gay couples exist, so why not extend the same rights straight couples get to them? My girlfriend's mother got remarried last year. So did two of my co-workers. Even though gay marriage is the law of the land in my country, it didn't seem to deter them from getting married. You may not hate homosexuals, but you seem to view them as a threat to marriage. So far you haven't proved how and why.

LAST @John:

"Article written by a talk show host that is too long to repost"

I think GrrlRomeo hit the nail on the head in her post and covered almost everything I wanted to say. But there are a few things I would like to address. If Mr. Prager thinks that LGBT people are accepted by pretty much everyone in society and that violence doesn't happen to us anymore, he must be living in a different world than I live in, because every LGBT person I know gets judged, beaten, or insulted for who they are by someone, usually a family member.

The accommodations that Mr. Prager wants his reader to be so terrified of are not made because "The Left wants to obliterate any differences between men and women", but because people don't live up to these differences. As GrrlRomeo said, gender is a spectrum, not a binary, and people fall on all ends of it. Making accommodations to reflect this reality is the recognition that trans, genderqueer, and gender non conforming people matter, and deserve to feel as safe and accepted as other people.

Ontario, you are rocking out today.

*Yawns lazily* Good morning everyone. The second you could've stopped listening to this guy was the second he admitted his arguments are based on logical fallacies. In LD debate when someone says "yes my argument is a slippery slope" that means you, the person pointing out that it's a slippery slope, have won. In LD debate fashion, you don't have to continue arguing the point once you've pointed out the flaw and your opponent has admitted to it. You can still do it, please feel free to argue what you want. I enjoyed reading your responses, I'll admit. Just realize you don't have to if you don't want to.

sadly yes, and they make up about half the country and they vote.

29 States vote for judges at the state level. The federal level is different. they are appointed and confirmed by the Senate.

And there should be any reelections or retentions for judges. If there is no life tenure, they should all go and not have to pander to clueless idiots.

Has this ever happened before though? An activist campaign to unseat judges for a specific ruling that worked?

Yes – although it’s a relatively new phenomena - especially in states with constitutions that incorporate putting justices up for retention votes every number of stated period of years (most states I think?) – this is now being used by extreme fringe groups to “target” mostly judges who are determined to be “liberal” in their rulings by these groups…like in Iowa here for example with same sex marriage rulings. However, I think this may be unique – unseating a judge by specifically targeting them for same sex marriage rulings. Most all other instances I remember where for judges targeted (successfully) for their apparent ‘liberal leanings’ regarding abortion rulings…

Retention votes were historically used to get rid of judges demonstrating deviant/immoral behavior, or just general incompetence – now it is being used to target issues that right wing groups want to shove down our throats anyway they can. However, the election process itself for judges is also being manipulated by extreme fringe groups – just recently here in California we have a group of whack jobs “I’m doing God’s work” lawyers in San Diego that are/were (?) organizing and targeting 4 judges, trying to replace them with religious extremists who will do “God’s work”…it’s scary because most people don’t have access to good info on who they are voting for regarding judges (like you mentioned) – while I think they didn’t succeed in this one instance (not totally sure yet though), there are those that think this kind of tactic will actually be very successful eventually due to voter apathy…

Then there’s the little problem of these right wing activists who are targeting some states constitutions to change the judicial selection/retention process to try and institute rules/regs that favor their being able manipulate what kind of judge gets to sit…basically, they try and remove/change the separation of powers protections and institute measures where judges will have to be very concerned about losing their job if they dare to make controversial rulings that may piss off a certain vocal minority – an attempt to skew the rulings so to speak.

Like we didn’t have enough to worry about.

Oh – if interested in a web site for all things judges (selection, campaign, history, etc.): http://www.judicialselection.us/

And, I, like you, could not find any ‘liberal’ judicial voter guide – what I did find was an internet full of every whack job right wing interest groups voter guide for all things judges…not one liberal site could I find…yet dozens and dozens of…does not bode well for who’s organizing the best strategy…

Hmmmm... maybe this is because all the states who wanted anti-gay legislation have pretty much gotten it passed already?

Ugh…excuse me?! Don’t think so Gauis Gracchus – a couple months ago, after California’s Prop 8 was struck down as unconstitutional, 10 states filed a brief in the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals to formally assert their belief a mistake was made, stating inequitably same sex couples have no rights under the U.S. Constitution to get married, and, that states have the right to keep them from legally getting married…

If it helps, I went a got a listing of these states for you:

Alabama – Florida – Idaho – Indiana – Louisiana – Michigan - South Carolina – Utah – Virginia – Wyoming.

That is true.

Note, however, that every single one of those states already has statues and constitutional amendments IN PLACE that are anti-gay. Their filings in protest merely are in support of the legislation they already have. (Wyoming is a special case, however.)

So, for you, I have a link to a map that shows this:

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/issue_maps/samesex_relationships_7_09.pdf

If you inspect this map it is quite clear that things look grim for gay rights at the state level. A cursory glance at the map shows that there are very, very few states that don't have anti-gay laws already in place.

So the point I am trying to make is, regarding this sort of legislation, how much worse can it get?

GG....sigh...if you want to interpret your "statutes" and whatever else preclude states from seeking an all out ban on same sex marriage, then I'm not the person to debate this with you.

To clarify my point and reason for answering - I simply do not agree with you that states are not seeking a ban on same sex marriage because "all the states who wanted anti-gay legislation have pretty much gotten it passed already?". (your answer to GrrrlRomeo's "on the bright side, no gay marriage bans passed this year."). [I also would add I don''t agree states are through with seeking anti gay legislation in general]. I believe it is only reasonable, given the climate and evidence of demonstrated behaviors by states, that the fight for same sex marriage is a long way from being over....as much as I too would like to call it a victory and go home from the fight.

I agree -- the fight is not over. Nothing I wrote indicates such an opinion. But as the map shows, an all-out ban on same-sex marriage is ALREADY in place in the vast majority of states.

Of course we should fight this, but states don't need to enact more legislation -- they already have it, as you can see. And yes, they will fight our attempts to overturn it.

You have posted a lot of very good information with ideas that are very insightful. I would like to think, however, that when others post ideas with which you disagree that you do not respond with quite the snort of disgust evidenced here.

???

"Ugh…excuse me?!"

"GG....sigh...if you want to interpret your "statutes" and whatever else.."

Your position was nothing other than somewhat extreme, and also somewhat dangerous, in my opinion - sorry? for writing an opposing view in a format that pointed this out?...rather politely I would add given the nature of your original post (what was your tone one would ask?)....your getting rankled at being told a person does not agree with you, and points out the flaws in your logic, is not a problem you can saddle me with GG.

My intent was to indicate thoughtful consideration of the original post and to invite other opinions as to whether it was the case or not:

"Hmmmm... maybe this is because all the states who wanted anti-gay legislation have pretty much gotten it passed already?"

I genuinely wished to hear if others thought this was a possibility. You have given an opposing viewpoint which I did appreciate. I still see the evidence supporting the hypothesis I made originally, but who knows what actually will happen. Things could get worse in that we lose the states we already have, I suppose, but it looks like most states already have the very legislation we were discussing in the first place. As I suggested originally.

Seriously, I knew trouble was brewing the second I saw those bad boys wiggling just above her eyes. You can't be sane and have those eyebrows.

I agree with the eyebrows!! Made her look scary!

LOL.. I'm glad I'm not the only person that found the eyebrows disturbing.. she wouldnt have lasted through the Salem Witch trials! Seriously though, she clearly believes what she's saying,and thats just bizarre and sad.

The "right" to oppress.

I'm not John, but maybe I can help. Some people have a very strong desire for order, for things to be as they 'should' be and, consequently, have a strong dislike of anything that seems to threaten disorder or of dislocating things from their proper place. They also have very small comfort zones and high levels of general anxiety, and they tend to see things in simple black and white. These are the people who are most strongly pulled toward right-wing ideologies. Same-sex marriage is just too different for them, too outside their experience and their sense of they way things should be. Anything different is wrong and a threat. And, of course, there is a large class of politicians who derive their power from perpetually winding these people up.

soTrue So true

I have a t-shirt that says, "Ban Republican Marriage".

The above was supposed to read:

This country WAS founded because people were trying to escape the tyranny of a government. It was founded by people of differing religions (aghast, yes, it was), trying to give inalienable rights to ALL.

(Sorry, a little typo can make a BIG difference)

Thanks Ontario girl! You make too much sense to be an American!!!

I'm moving to Canada!

Gay marriage should never be put to a vote. It never should have been put to a vote. The people who oppose it got to frame the issue, which is the problem. Gay marriage supporters ought to challenge their framing and re-make the issue, because as it stands this whole "you ought to have the right to vote on someone else's family" thing is really winning the day and it shouldn't.

I heartily agree.

Yes Brian mine too. It seems to me they have all forgotten who put us in this mess to begin with, and yet they voted them back in office. I'd say come 2012 it will all turn around again. I haven't looked at the news this morning, but when I went to bed 2 races were too close to call on the Democrats retaining the Senate. I don't think the repubs could have taken the senate, but stranger things have happened. It bothers me that after seeing the girl getting her head stomped on in Kentucky by Rand Pauls people, he would actually win that state. I was up long enough to see John Raese shed his tears over losing to Joe Manchin in my state of West By God Virginia. It was a joy to see him lose again after running for everything in the last 22 years. I hope he got the message and goes back to Florida where he lives and his wife is a registered voter. It shocked me that Ohio voted in repubs as did VA. I don't know where things are headed right now, but if the repubs do what they have been doing for the last year and 10 months, they are all going to be sitting there twiddling their thumbs, drawing a paycheck from the American People for yet still doing nothing but saying no to everything the Democrats come up with to try and help this economy. These United States need some Indians to go along with all these Chiefs, or nothing again will get accomplished. I can say that, as I am mostly Indian. It scares me when I wonder what is going to happen in the next two years. I suppose we should be grateful that o'donnel and angle didn't win anything, but o'donnel made a great side show.

As for what everybody is commenting on here, I could care less who married who, what their sexes are, as long as they too can live what is suppose to be, The American Dream. Everybody has a right to happiness. Why is the government involved in this one? Let the past be the past and let's move on with the future. I fear the repubs will never let that happen as they are all too involved with trying to take us back to the 60's with race wars and riots, the bigotry and hatred. Let's face it, john mccain will never get over the fact he was beaten out of the presidency by a half black man, and will never believe, birth certificate or not, he was actually born in the United States. Nor will sarah what's her face. Let's all stand together as Democrats and write or email our Congress and Senate everyday if need be, until they get the message things have to get done. I'm doing it already, will there be others here that will stand with me and spread the word to neighbors and friends. We are the people that pay them, LET OUR VOICES BE HEARD!! STAND TALL, STAND PROUD, FIGHT FOR OUR AMERICA!! We Will Not Let Them Bulldoze Us Into A Hole!!

disclaimer...I will never capitalize the words repub, republican, or anyone having to do with their party.

It seems to me people can't see the forest through the trees! Bush, really? You are blaming this on Bush? A president who had two wars going on and a DEMOCRATIC HOUSE AND SENATE!!!!! REALLY!? You want progress, then get over that junk. The only bad thing done in the Bush years BY Bush personally was "no child left behind"! The other JUNK including TARP was done by the Dems in the house and senate. DUH! Now at least the house is changed and things for the country will too. Jobs WILL finally grow and it won't be because of anything Obama or the Dems did.

Republicans believe in the American Dream more than liberals. Republicans and Conservatives EARN it with Blood, Sweat and Tear, and Democrats want it handed to them by government.

Republicans believe in the American Dream more than liberals.

Exactly right. Conservatives believe way more in fantasy than liberals.

To 317718....

Republicans believe in the American Dream more than liberals. Republicans and Conservatives EARN it with Blood, Sweat and Tear, and Democrats want it handed to them by government.

are you insane?? who has been sitting drawing paychecks from the American People since Jan. 09 and has done nothing but sit with their arms crossed, that pd'off look on their face and doing nothing but saying no to everything coming down the pike, and not offering up any ideas to help us, THE PEOPLE THAT PAY THEM.....You may want to change that statement, and say the stupid repubs have nothing to offer up, because they are the ones that put us in this mess....if we are really lucky, they'll get voted out in 2012!!

Why don't you go to a repub site?? Oh, and watch the next Presidential address and just see how they act.....get your facts straight before you bother to post your nonsense. The repubs are trying to take us back to the 60's with their racial slurs, hatred and the division of this country. It's all on their backs.....