I completely agree with you - no one, gay or straight, is having their rights infringed when it comes to marriage or civil unions. The issu for them is one of accepting of their lifestyle. Furthermore, I have NEVER met a Republican or Conservative that says they hate gays or want to harm anyone who is gay - funny, however, that I have met gays who hate conservatives or want to harm them. I think Meghan seems like a sweet person, but not understanding the crux of the matter at heart or even worse, allowing the one side you listen to (the liberal side) falsely define the opposing view and accuse the other side of bigotry and hatred is simply childish.

Marriage is a legal binding agreement that is based on several religious faiths. However, in present day we have evolved well beyond the religious constraints of marriage and have clearly defined it in a legal construct. There are plenty of non-believing men and women who are married. Many clergy turn away couples away from being joined in their churches and synagogues. They are able to still be married by judges or other appointed state magistrates. The same thing would exist in same-sex marriages. No one is going to force the Pope to marry Kate & Ann as we do not force him to marry Alan & Cathy. This is one of the weak scare tactics the religious right puts out into the media to create fear among their community and beyond. There is a separation of church and state in the U.S.-contrary to popular belief-therefore there are no legal laws that can be imposed on those organizations. Example, many churches still promote racist and discriminative practices within their communities and the state is unable to force those churches to allow persons of color to participate in their worship practices.

When you vote against "gay marriage" you are actually voting on what churches can or cannot do, which are religious issues...courthouse ceremonies are actually civil unions whether the couple is male/female or same sex...and per the constitution you have no right to impose your views on religion because the consitution guarantees freedom of religion. If you are a true republican you should encourage your party to remove itself from these religious issues. Or you should form a separate party based on religious issues...abortion, anti gay marriage, etc. and let the republican party get back to it's job of balancing the democratic party on fiscal issues.

kdizzy, absbel -- if you were correct, I'd agree with you. But you're wrong on the terminology... we have two different things that are both called "marriage" -- the civil/legal one, and the religious one. I definitely agree that a big part of this is semantics -- if we just renamed civil marriage as "civil unions," a lot of this controversy would evaporate...

When you get married at a courthouse-- you're still married. Nothing remotely religious about that, right? This semantical argument about the word "marriage" is pretty disingenuous. Gay people want equal rights, that's all. I don't know a single person who would want to get married somewhere where they are not welcomed. Everyone knows that! This fear campaign to make people feel like the gays are coming for their churches and kindergartners is absolutely inane.

You have it exactly backward. Marriage is a legal institution; all the religious trappings are just window-dressing. No matter what you choose to do in your church, unless you go down to City Hall and get a marriage license, YOU AREN'T LEGALLY MARRIED. Legally recognizing gay marriage doesn't force churches to change their beliefs or practices. But it does stop them from forcing them on everyone else.

Marriage IS NOT a term that is particular to religion, that why we have marriage licenses issued by the state and marriage ceremonies performed by justice of the peace.

@ kdizzydaze:

You must have an incredible ability to tune out all the gay bashings/beatings/murders that take place against gay communities on a daily basis.

I'll provide you with a list of hundreds of hate crime murders and gay beatings that occur due to ignorance and rhetoric.

If you can provide me with a similar list of murders or beatings against republicans or conservatives by the hands of gay people, this argument will end.

Until then, be aware that gay people, your friends, your family, your neighbors, are dying because of rhetoric and false accusations like this. Be more responsible and research your statements so that your ignorance doesn't spread.

Churches TODAY without Gay Marraige are allowed to discriminate, and often times do, for whatever reasons. Marraige laws, allowing for Gay Marraige or not, do not mandate that churches or religous institutions marry anyone at all. Churches still have autonomy.

No one has EVER EVER EVER asked for a change of the religious definition of marriage. That is the problem. The vernacular word "marriage". Gay couples just want the benefits of marriage bestowed by the state. My partner and I do our taxes twice every year - once as singles and once as married. And every year we would save thousands in federal taxes if we were married. And that is not including the potential social security benefits.

No new religious sect has to be created. There are many Christian Churches that support gay marriage. It is the resistance of the Government to honor those marriages that is the problem. My pastor is preparing to marry my partner and I as soon as it is legal. Nobody is asking Catholics or Mormons to change their religions-just get out of my religious and civil business.

Should not we be more concerned with issues in this country rather than Gay marriages. I am confused what almost every homosexual wants to have kids. Does it mean that the child would be homosexual because he was growing up in this environment. Seems selfish. Dont we all get effected by environment we are surrounded in some way or the other, especailly in the earlier development stages?

Bingo. Well-said, Iconic.

AMEN!!! Marriage is a personal choice, and should not bring with it any monetary benefits just because you decide to get married. If I choose to never get married then I have to pay more in taxes over my lifetime, which is messed up. The last thing this world needs is another reason for people to get together and spread more babies around!

I understand that a man can love a man and a woman can love a woman. One of your points is that, speaking in religious terms, gay's cannot be married. But I must protest, because mormons believe in a faith that allows for a man to have several wives. There are states that have made gay marriages legal. Shouldn't these states then make it also legal for a person to have multiple husbands/wives because it IS an actual religious belief. There are people who have been arrested and have served jail time because of their religious beliefs. Should we turn a blind eye to this? No, but there isn't a social uprising for this. Why should it take millions to make a change when hundreds try as hard. If gay marriages are being legalized and voted on, then why not a religious marriage of multiple partners?

why not allow people to disagree with gay marriage without trying to force them to another way of thinking. I thought liberalism were enlightened and were all in favor of free thoughts and ideas.

I am a conservative republican. I sympathize with you. For me, I vote "no" to gay marriage for one reason- Marriage whether you are a Christian (which I am) or not is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman (The American Heritage Dictionary) and that is what I believe. I ( and I believe many other con. republicans) however would vote yes to a civil union for gay persons. I believe a persons choices (all choices) are their own and they will answer to God and are not for me to judge. My issue ( as with many conservatives) is feeling gay and liberal "tolerance" is to believe EXACTLY as they do and anything else is considered racist, etc. I do not have to support "gay marriage" to show tolerance. I can agree with civil unions to show tolerance. Both sides could have what they want by just changing simple wording. Civil unions allow you to have the legal protection you want and what gay activist SAY they are trying to accomplish without forcing me to change my belief. If this compromise was achieved I really believe the fight would be won for both sides.All the best to you.

This is not about religion, it is about the laws of God the Creator. The one who created you to be a strong man. His law says that a Man is to marry a woman. In Leviticus 18:22 says Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin. Lev.20: 13 says the penality for homosexuality acts is death that you bring upon yourselves. Please face the truth, It is not a normal act for man to mate with man or woman to mate with woman as animals do. God made man and woman to fit together. We are not asking you to not do what you want to do, that's your business. But you are trying to force your lifestyles on us. God loves you and so do we, He just does not approve of your lifestyle. Please honor God enough to keep his law of marriage between man and woman, and ask for a Civil Union to legally bind your relationship.

Good Lord, Republicans are now anti-human?!?! Apparently, you think so.

Human rights - Are Republican *against* human rights? Seems as if history might disagree with you there. Where do you see any evidence of Republicans seeking to stem the extension of human rights?

Education - Republicans are anti-education? Maybe you mean, anti-government education. The social experiment that the NEA has been conducting in recent decades has led to the worsening of our and our childrens' education according to international ratings. Why aren't our kids the brightest and most well learned? Is it because liberals are more concerned with non-competitive exercises and less with math and science perhaps?

Environment - Oh yeah, 31,000 scientists can disagree with the theory of man-caused global warming, so that makes Republicans anti-environment. Science isn't a popularity contest. Without a livable environment, all of us would be sick and dying, so you don't think we care about that? Libs can be so illogical and badly educated.

Alleviation of poverty - So, how is that whole welfare program is doing? Is there anyone living in poverty anymore? Well, why didn't the numbers of destitute get better if welfare was the answer?

Tell me, is there anything wrong with:

1. Smaller government
2. Belief that life begins at conception (instead of an arbitrary date post-conception)
3. Fiscal responsibility (and before you say it, you're right, Bush *was not* fiscally responsible. But, that doesn't mean that Dems should go on a spending binge. If your husband ran up a $10k credit card debt, should you go out and spend $40k on credit in response?)
4. Belief in the US Constitution, even if owning firearms is unpopular with liberals
5. Believing in originalism for judges

Now, please tell me you're kidding. Its not possible that you don't believe that Republicans are good people that care about other people...

"At the root of homosexual behavior is an extremely unhealthy sexual act, which is more often than not the act of placing of one's privates into feces. It is against all rules of common sense to think this is a healthy act to be sanctioned by the state. And then there are other issues, chief among them is that the union of homosexual couples cannot lead to procreation and the incubation of another healthy, productive worker, pro forma tax income to the state and all. What benefit does the state receive in sanctioning anal sex in matrimony?"

1. Female-Female does not involve placing genitalia in feces.
2. "Sanctioned by the state"? The state shouldn't be involved in the sexual activities of *any* individual, let alone give a preference to a sexual orientation by decree.
3. Procreation is *not* a guiding principle in our society/government. The federal government's job is to protect the citizenry first, and to protect our rights second. In our country, we shouldn't give a goddamn if the government wants more citizens (procreation) or not, its none of its concern. The government is allowed to govern at our behest, it has no other concern with our activities or family construct. In any case, studies have shown **conclusively** that single parents lead to maladjusted adults (higher incidents of violent crimes, drug use/addiction, prostitution, etc.). Same sex partners can adopt, or in the case of females, artificially inseminate, and head two parent households. So, for our society, adoption and two parents = WIN.
4. Productive workers? Pro forma taxable income?
Are we bees, or perhaps this has become a communist regime while I slept last night?!? WTF? Who gives a rat's ass if the government gets another worker bee or more taxable income?!? I want good Americans that build our society, espouse the ideals of freedom and natural rights of man. We want humans that lead happy and free lives because that is what is both best for the individual and for our society. F*** the government, who cares what it wants?

Gays aren't hurting anybody by their activities any more than individuals that smoke, are promiscuous heterosexuals, drink all night in front of the TV, worship poisonous snakes, etc. This is America, the government has no place in our homes or in our lives. If people want to have anal sex, its none of the your business either, let alone the government's.

"At the root of homosexual behavior is an extremely unhealthy sexual act, which is more often than not the act of placing of one's privates into feces. It is against all rules of common sense to think this is a healthy act to be sanctioned by the state." - useburners

Wow, you're pretty naive if you think gay men are the only ones having anal sex!

Useburners has no idea what he is talking about. Anal sex is actually rather uncomfortable for men, due to pressure on the prostate. Therefore, oral sex between two men is the preferred method of intercourse.

Hi Gemini, there is a subtlety in your point that is so subtle that it got over looked;

"Gays aren't hurting anybody by their activities any more than individuals that smoke, are promiscuous heterosexuals, drink all night in front of the TV, worship poisonous snakes,"

People who smoke hurt themselves and others around them, in a deadly fashion, just because they have the right to do it does not mean it is right.

That can also be applied to homosexuality and by extension any other sex act.

Promiscuous hetero's do a great deal of harm to themselves, their partners and even the health care system and economy associated with the expense at treating these things which could be GREATLY reduced if people observed very simple, but meaningful and even FAR MORE pleasurable, codes of conduct.

Married couples can do WHAT EVER THEY WANT in the bedroom, no holds barred, go to town, but once it spills out of the confines of the bedroom (or public places for those that can't wait) into society then it is a whole other story.

All of those behaviors mentioned though are extremely harmful to the individual and society.

These are the mundane points, the profane points, I am not going to touch the sanctity issue, the one that truly elevates society to that far above the beasts in the field.

Yes, that was on purpose Erick00, the key being, "...any more than...".

I would grant that smokers also harm those around them, but I don't feel its the government's place to determine whether its lawful to smoke if the adult individual smoking makes that determination for themselves and does so in the privacy of their own home/property. Likewise, I think the same would apply to sexual activities between consenting adults in privacy. That means I support the elimination of such things as sodomy laws, not because I wish to participate, but as a matter of constitutional rights guarantee to privacy.

"Promiscuous hetero's do a great deal of harm to themselves, their partners and even the health care system and economy associated with the expense at treating these things..."

Again, not the concern of our government. Insurance companies have actuary tables for such things as; smoking, obesity, sexual activity, drug use, etc. Private businesses respond to the costs (because it directly effects their profit margin) of behaviors that raise the cost of healthcare, which is exactly why the free market is so great. We don't need oversight and regulation of PEOPLE, because the market place does this automatically. If someone wants to participate in weekly skydiving trips, they will pay higher premiums for their behavior, as long as they are willing to pay that premium, the system keeps rolling along and it has no effect on individuals that don't participate in those activities.

BTW, I don't believe that smoking is harmful to society. It may certainly be harmful to the individual, but are you saying we should allow the government control over ever aspect of our lives? We already have laws for seat-belts, helmets, air-bags, pool fences, etc. This is how we become a nanny state, not just in the socialization of our economy, but in allowing the state to dictate what and how we live our lives. We sacrifice the freedom and liberty of the individual for the sake of society...

Hey Gemini, great point then!

This is a message to Geministorm:

"Human rights - Are Republican *against* human rights? Seems as if history might disagree with you there. Where do you see any evidence of Republicans seeking to stem the extension of human rights?"

Umm.... prop 8?

Please know that there are different kinds of love. There is the Agape Love: The God kind of love; There's the Phileo Love: Tender affection that a father/mother has for their children,ect. And also there's the Eros Love: The emotional kind of Love and lover of pleasure. Somewhere in there we choose to love or lust. God is not a part of Lust. Lust tells us that we like/love someone or something that is not good for us, but because God did give us to will on our own, we disobey Him and do what we want to do. God did not ordain any man to mate with another man or same for the female. Think about who you are representing. This is not about religion.

"what a beach!" laughed so much

and yes, how petty, Meghan made good points they didn't even try and argue their opinion.

I don't think marriage was always religious, I remember learning about the Susa Marriages and Alexander the Great, pretty sure they weren't really religious as we would understand today and that certainly pre-dates Christianity. I think more non-religious straight couples get married than gay couples would so marriage is simply not solely religious any more, not enough to use that as an argument. In America Church and State are seperaye. Here in the UK they're not (they should and might become though), but in the US how is there any excuse? Why can't there just be marriages (legal, governmental) which can be seen as religious with ceremonies if you want them to. For the gay couples who are religious well, I'm sure they'll choose somewhere gay-friendly or else why would they want to have a ceremony there/be part of that community? If a sector of relgion is still homophobic in any way I doubt they'll have anything to do withth it unless provoke.

Its about rights. Replace "gay" with many other things and it'll seem ridiclous that its still an issue. Don't people realise that if the rights were there, this "gay" focus would have no reason to be talked about. You don't choose to be gay thus you're basically discriminated from birth even if it is not evident for years, luckily I'm sure this will change by the time any babies born today grow up

And I would trade you for Palin adn the gays any day.

As for the gays and lesbians of this country (and world) - I think you are all just fine the way you are and I will never want to have a say (or the government having a say) in how you live your lives. But I will never agree, no matter any outcome in any court, to those of you that believe gay marriage is a right. Hey, call me a hate mongering, fear mongering whatever you wish, I just don't see it and never will

@kdizzydaze

That's okay, there's still people who think blacks and white shouldn't get married, too.

There will always be people like you, and you'll always lose in the end.

@kdizzydaze

not sure how seriously I should take your criticism... do you follow my posts or just this one?

I think its fine not to agree that gays have the right to marriage per say. I do think there should be some bundle of legal contracts which is pretty equivalent for gays though. Like inheritance hospital visitation etc. Some of the stuff from marriage that has directly to do with children is of course not needed. Can we agree on that ?

I agree ElLamer. No rational person believes being gay is a choice (if they do they really are a repressed bisexual because how else could they figure that?) Often when I read of America there's all this about how it was founded, equality etc etc, so clearly the same rights are only right. At the moment
Not a choice in wanting to marry same gender>no rights>unfair
Hospital visitation, inheritance etc

As for the term marriage well, thats more complicated, marriage wasn't always religious as far as my research tells me (and nobody has argued with evidence otherwise) and there seems to have been gay marriage/marriage-esque stuff in the past so tbh this wholele aspect is debatable. I will say though, if people have their rights then the thing will die down and nobody will really notice if some religious people do not embrace it. There'll just be a little more separation in those married is all. Nobody OWNS marriage OR its definition. It should be government making equality and everything else is whatever they want to call it. Legally it'll be marriage, but you can call it something else non-legally, a gay person could call your marriage something else non-legally too. Seems only fair and logical.

You don't see gays rioting in the streets? Do you not see the uproar from California?

BTW, LBJ was a racist. He signed the Civil Rights act thinking that the Democratic party would lose the Southern members because of his act but signed it anyway due to pressure. Martin Luther King was a Republican...you probably didn't know that, do you think it was because he didn't know who was on his side of the civil rights issue(s)?

I guess the liberal leanings of our public schools have indoctrinated everyone into thinking that the Republicans are the racists...

We're FOR equal rights for all men (and women).

As for "choice", I would ask when a woman's right to choose ends. Do you wait until 1st term, 2nd term, 3rd term, delivery, 18 years? Well, if there is room for discussion, then why can't conservatives vote for conception? The whole argument boils down to when YOU define the beginning of life. And, if you can't handle some others defining it differently than you, then it is YOU that has the problem.

Wanting,

While I don't agree that the Civil Rights movement was advanced more by violence (I don't believe it was), I do think that asking for rights is the wrong way to approach the issue. Rights are not ours to give or take, only to ENFORCE. If rights could be given, then they can be taken. It is the duty of the Executive, even if by force, to guarantee you your rights.

To the one who compared the White/Black thing to your getting married is not the same. What ever race that you are is fine. We are only saying that we don't agree with your calling your gay union Marriage. Civil Union is find.
May God be with you to see the light.

No bain
I banned
Myself
Your posts
Are more
Thoughtful.

Do you realize that most people in New York or San Francisco moved there from one of the flyover states? Therefore, they usually have more of a context for what they like or don't like about America than people who gripe about "all the libs in New York or Chicago or San Francisco."

BHO has stated, rather quietly, that he is against gay marriage. He stated that in a press released denouncing Prop. 8 in California, calling it "discriminatory and divisive."

It's possible that he and Megan could find some middle ground on this issue--in fact, it's possible many conservatives and liberals who could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes can find middle ground here.

Many hate gays...not all, but many. If the religious "base" wasn't so important, why did/do republicans campaign on bigoted values tickets? If republicans are so inclusive, why pander to the nutcases? Could it be that a not-insignificant portion of the party are nutcases themselves? I think they'd try to be more inclusive, but just fall back on old ways of behaving. We need a new independent party that doesn't include the evangelical crap.

Well, I am a gay from a small town in Texas and I have been told FLAT OUT that I am hated and unwanted. But again, I prescribe this to a small but loud minority that does not reflect the totality of the republican party; much like the loud and angry gays that get violent at protests.

"Many hate gays...not all, but many."

Many?
Hate?

Someone forgot to debrief you when you were freed from that indoctrination camp. I'm not sure I know a single person that "hates" gays, let alone "many". Unless you've got a personal list of "many" that "hate" gays, perhaps you should leave that crap at the door.

Not sure if I'm replying correctly: Geministorm, you're absolutely right that there are many conservatives who don't care a whit about gays, let alone hate them. But traditionally, the religious right has provided this stereotype for the left.

Never met someone who hates gays? Great. You surround yourself with good company. Ask a gay person if they've met anyone who hates gays, and see what they say.

QFT.

Exactly!

It is hard to understand why so many Dems buy into the degrading stereotypes of Reps. I'm guessing that class warfare benefits the Democratic agenda.

That's a ton of hate coming from you, I'm guessing you either have a major chip on your shoulder or have joined the zealot-no-thinking-allowed party.

First of all, it doesn't take a Republican to attack someone. I can spend two minutes looking at the recent Prop 8 hubub in California to find gays threatening and attacking people. Does that make all gays viscous, hate-filled, loons? Outliers (those that lay on the outside of the "norm" for society) can be found in every stratum of society. Republicans as a whole don't hate blacks or gays and I know this because I'm a far right conservative (usually Republican) and I don't hear anyone disparaging gays, even in private, or blacks or hindus or whatever. Live and let live is the usual stance from what I can tell. I will say that if I ever came to believe that Republicans *were* bigoted, I wouldn't associate myself with them and I'd be the first to expose them.

Second, I challenge you to provide any evidence AT ALL of **anyone** yelling out, "kill him" at a Palin rally. The reason I know you will fail is two fold; (1) if a threat were made against a presidential candidate, the Secret Service would have come down like a ton of bricks, (2) the aforementioned hoax was investigated and found to be completely false. So, while its easy for you to assign racist remarks and even call a rally a "Klan" rally, you're really nothing more than a hatemonger yourself hiding behind a veil of elitist misinformation. You are fed what to think instead of actually investigating and finding out for yourself what happens. As such, I really have no motivation to respond to your volatile comments further, however I will labor on...

"...like a cankered whore smiling" - Such a sweet and loving disposition you have. There is no hate there, is there? Do you actually have any knowledge of what Sarah Palin has done or stands for outside of the slanted views you've been spoon fed? I'm guessing no, you visit leftist hate sites that exhibit no redeeming value let alone journalistic integrity. What a hypocrite you are, to spew such hatred all the while decrying the manufactured bigotry of others.

"...your party has never been about truth..." - You would know this, how? Your searing hatred for anyone that thinks differently than you has blinded you to all logic and reason. You cannot fathom that anything said by a Republican could possibly be truthful because you are blinded by your hatred. That hatred is fueled and fed by a few people that understand the value of class warfare, because hot emotions insure you will *never* think for yourself and you will only follow their lead like a good little cult member. I used to be a liberal, born and bred, I know from whence you come and how you think.

"...you don't really give a Damn about a gay American do you?" - Oh, you've nailed that one on the head! That's right, I couldn't possibly know any homosexual, at least not that I would knowingly associate with, right?!?! Heh, friends and family as the commercial goes...I care about *all* Americans, I don't care what their sexual orientation is (well, if they like young children, that's a different story). But, I don't want to dispel any of your indignation at Republicans, you go on with your life believing that that we are mini-eichmanns, be a drone, its what your masters want from you...unthinking, frothing at the mouth, easily guided...

"Or, would you actually have to think of us as people in order to hate us?" - What a drama queen, and I mean that in a non-sexually oriented manner...heh. Even though you're a brain-dead drone, I still consider you a person and I don't hate you. Really, I'm sad to see such a sorry waste of DNA. But, there is probably hope for you yet, I don't expect you'll ever figure out anything on your own, but you never know.

Wanting, there are some very well spoken and principled centrists/leftist posting here, you would do well to emulate them. Take a moment to reflect upon your rage that you are expressing towards others. Where does your rage for Sarah Palin come from? Is it because she has directly affected your life in some way? Did she subject you to torture or kill your dog or what? Is it because her beliefs are different than your's? Find the answer for where your anger is coming from, because it is not conducive to your growth intellectually nor your maturity and from what I've seen, you have little of either.

BTW, I don't have to try tell the truth for "once". As a principled person, I find that always telling the truth means I have nothing to hide nor to remember.

Who are you to complain about "lazy lies," Wanting? You are still stuck on those stupid stories that people yelled "kill him" upon mention of Obama's name at McCain/Palin rallies. They're not true. Be smarter than to get your news from Josh Marshall & Keith Olbermann.

And I DON'T hate you, Wanting. Not wanting you to marry someone of the same-sex has nothing to do with "hate." But you want me to hate you because if I DID hate you, it would justify your hatred of people like me.

All I need to know, is right here;

"The anger over the ACTIONS -- being Republican do you even understand the concept of ACTION - of those who passed Prop 8 in California was more than justified - you hate someone for who they are - we hate people for what they do. There is a difference - you have more than earned our hate - come and get it."

The citizens of California voted in a way that did not sit well with the minority view. Instead of accepting a democratic society and lawfulness, it was decided that non-democratic methods were the way to go.

By all means, do as you wish. Kill those you hate, call them all liars, and punish any you find culpable....not trial or jury is needed, mob rule it is. Words are lost on the zealot and the mob, it is a fruitless endeavor. Your generation will inherit this country soon enough, its such a shame that your ages' wisdom is derived from internet gossip.

You're wrong: I voted for several Republicans over the years, notably in business situations. Moreover, I came of voting age in Arizona in the days of Barry Goldwater, an incredible man of great accomplishments I wish I could have met personally.

You're also wrong about taxes: as someone who's well into the top 10%, I am a firm believer that the top 10% should pay more than they do in taxes because we can afford to do so. That's putting my money where my mouth is. I'm a Federalist:: when you're a citizen, you have an obligation to pay for things. It's how it all works.

And you're wrong once again: "left-leaning" because the book actually discusses the historical and abundantly verifiable same-sex unions? The idea that marriage has always and forevermore been what it is here and now in the last century in this country is, well, a POV, but it's not a supportable hypothesis.

Oh, and one other thing you're wrong about: the family values crowd definitely doesn't like homosexuality at all. It isn't just gay marriage. Some are a leetle more tolerant than others, true, but they're rarely better than "not too uncomfortable with it." As a fine example right off the top, let me point to Focus on the Family--and I think it was Dobson himself who really coined and popularized the term "family values"--which a/o about 2 minutes ago is still full of articles about how homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, against God's law, is a choice, is curable, and will "Destroy You, Your Faith, and Your Children." Gay marriage doesn't even get a look in there. I find it hard to believe that these are signs of some unobserved indifference on the general topic.

No, no, Sarah Palin's a Christian fascist because she's a Dominionist.

And I stand corrected on Fred Phelps. Though I admit to being greatly surprised. I can only assume that it's because he's taking his fight to the place he sees needs it most, but if he's a Democrat, he's a Democrat. :)

She's a "fascist" because it serves the left's purposes to demonize her. They feel if they portray her as an authoritarian religious zealot that would force her world view on every American (as if that were possible) people will either react with hostility towards her or alienate and shun her. Even though in her role as the executive of the state of Alaska they can find no evidence to support their wild and outrageous accusations. Plus, its easy for the unintelligent to accept a crass label so that they are spared the need to actually learn anything for themselves.

It makes you wonder why the same diligence wasn't paid to investigating Barack Obama....oh wait, I forgot that the print and televised media get wet/hard at the mere mention of our great leader... /sarc

Wanting,

First, define "fascism". Don't look it up, I don't want a political philosopher's definition, I want your definition so that I can understand what you think Palin is.

Second, give examples of how Sarah Palin is a fascist by your definition.

As far as "truth" is concerned, I doubt discussing alternative viewpoints with you would be useful, you are as close-minded an individual as I've ever seen, drone-like even.

Well wanting, I was hoping you'd at least have the ability to define what "fascism" means to you, but I see that was too difficult a task.

"...by every definition of the word..."

To quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I see that you are quite proficient in hatemongering, so perhaps it takes one to know one? I didn't hear any hateful rhetoric from Palin, but perhaps you'll come up with some quotes?

Oh, and good job on providing proof of someone yelling out "kill him" at a Palin rally. I searched the whole internet and didn't find it myself, maybe you have a link?

Hah!

YOU can't find a link, that is different. You made the claim, I asked for you to prove your statement, and *poof*, its my fault I can't prove your allegation.

You are only making a fool of yourself, all of your statements lose their merit as you continually demonstrate your inability to provide "truth". Hey, here's another plan, call me a liar and then show everyone what a dunce you are by asking me to prove your lie...woohoo, a trip into the Wanting Asylum.

You can't define a fascist because you don't know what it means, even for yourself. It is a word-tool for you to describe and degrade anything you don't agree with, like calling someone a nazi or a racist, its your ultimate attack designed to shut anyone up because your arguments have no weight, reason or merit. You are simply a parrot mouthing the inane ramblings of know-nothing demagogues. I'd call you a troll except you don't incite for amusement, you get enraged because you can't defend your moronic statements nor your suppositions of the right's hatred for anything and everything that is human. You lexicon is limited not only by your intellect, but by your inability to logically string together two thoughts.

The beauty of this is, you've started to ramble and repeat yourself, you've run out of attacks and things to say. Each of your claims of my hatred for others only diminishes yourself and robs you of power because you expose only your own hatred. Spout on, great philosopher, give us your great unsubstantiated truths and show us your soaring intellect as you wax on about your sexual prowess and the ineptitude of others.

Go on, I can take it. Plow on with your vitriolic hate speech, no one will mind watching as you crash and burn. Its too late to put the genie back in the bottle, you've already opened your mouth and exposed your idiocy.

3rd time's a charm: Mom sai

@wanting/Geministorm

to weigh in on your little spat, wanting needs to cool it but in essence he is right, the Palin clan does show SOME fascist traits. Calling one group of Americans "Real" Americans, Putting her political success above all other factors are fascist traits.

Above all the method in which her clan deals with criticism is clearly fascist. The "all critics are enemys whether their criticism has merit or not" is included in almost all definitions of fascism.

Geministorm's point (ok I'm kinda reading between the lines here) that fascist is the lazy mans criticism because it sounds bad and is so loosely defined parts of it are bound to fit also has merit. Its more of a form error on your part wanting, often a smaller but more provable allegation is more successful, there is enough to criticize with Palin you are sure to find a more well defined term than fascist.

EILamer,

You read that right, using fascist or nazi is an ad hominem attack and is a lazy way to try and win an argument without actually saying anything. If a fascist is an authoritarian (which is a common component of a definition), how has Palin demonstrated that trait? If someone doesn't like the us vs. them (class warfare) statements, *say that*, don't bandy about "fascism" when you don't know what it means.

Beyond that, wanting made an accusation that someone at a Palin rally yelled out a threat (kill him). After I ask for proof of such an invent (knowing that it was disproven already) he then puts it upon *me* to search for evidence proving his claim. Upon further exchange, it becomes my problem that I can't find evidence to substantiate his accusation, even though there are apparently 187k links...but still, he can't provide a single piece of proof. Therefore, any subsequent exchange will be dismissed because wanting has nothing to offer beyond baseless claims and far left-wing memes. If you can't argue or support your own positions, then how can you think to call into question (calling all Republicans liars, racists, homophobes, etc.) those that can and do support their positions? Mental midgets should not engage in political discussions when they represent their side so poorly.

wanting,

Your ineptitude and lack of even remedial arguing skills requires that I provide a demonstration.

1. I state the following;
Obama is a Muslim.
Obama is a Marxist.
Obama wasn't born in the US.

2. You call into question the validity of my statements;

3. I respond with;
I do not do your research - Jesus Christ - how lazy are you? If the above statements aren't true, provide a link and prove it.

In case you are still too dense to understand, when you make an unsubstantiated claim and someone calls you on it, it is YOUR duty to provide proof of your statement unless it is a generally accepted statement (the earth is round, Elvis is dead, water is wet).

Even if we decided to visit Bizarro world, and I was to provide you with news reports that the Secret Service investigated the claims that people yelled out "kill him" at rallies and found them to be false, would that convince you? No, it wouldn't. In your world, there is no disproving your delusion, and since you obviously can't prove it, you fall back on the tactic of placing the onus upon me to prove your point back to myself. That kind of bass-akwards thinking is how you demonstrate that you are bereft of any original or insightful thought processes. You are incapable of scrabbling together even the most basic argument and so you resort to name calling, ad hominem attacks and ranting.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEm5zb1lwxo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR200810 0602935.html

are a few of the news sources who initially reported on the kill him remarks. I do recall some news organization saying they "deebunked" the whole story but there research only consisted of realizing that the guy could have meant kill him to Ehers rather than Obama. Kind of weak.

@Geministorm yes Palin has not shown authoritarian traits in any major way, but then again historically no fascists have ever shown that trait before they came into power. Most fascists obviously hide their fascism as much as possible until the have a shot at absolute power. I don't know if Palin is a fascist, the only real way to prove someone is a fascist is usually after they take power. On the other hand you do want to stop them before they do that... I do know that her 'attack anyone who disagrees with her by every means possible' is a fascist trait but more importantly a trait that has led to the rise of a lot of bad people period. its just not a good way of debating (you listening wanting)

I would really enjoy a link to an article that debunks the "kill him" comments too. That would be a surprise to me as well as wanting to be honest.

@wanting relax man Palin is not going to get any higher in politics than Alaska and she is loosing support there too. Although I do share your dislike for Palin and a lot of other views you have, I read a lot of your posts, Geministorm does make a point. As long as you keep using the low blows (I am not your scotch-swilling wife) it takes away from all your other arguments. You do have a lot of political knowledge but its more the form errors which keep your message from getting out there to those who disagree with you at first. And there the important ones anyway.

she brought in the crowds and was the reason he got as close as he did (which wasn't very).
As for your vote in 2012. I am sure you won't worry about who the Republicans put on the ballot as you will follow the MSM's unsubstantiated claims of hate-mongering, Nazi style tactics that they purportedly use (sarcasm there) and vote for the dem. You already know it, now quit lying to the rest of us.

Except that, Palin's entry put McCain in the lead for the first and last time in the race. He only dropped his lead when he voted for the insane TARP bill.

Palin is the best thing that happened to Republicans in years.

And, anti-gay marriage is not homophobic by a long shot.

What "anti-gay rhetoric" of Palin's are you referring to? In the VP debate, in answer to Gwen Ifill's question of whether they support same-sex marriage, her answer was the same as Joe Biden's: No.

@kdizzydaze

if this "agree with everything we say or get out" mentality continues I probably will not vote for the GOP. Alot of the base seems pretty vicious towards me and a lot of other young people who really haven't formed ridged views yet. In fact Meghan already noted this as a downside to the GOP.

John,

I think I can offer what I believe is a pretty good reason to consider Meghan, as Banjo said, a "valid voice": she has people like me giving the Republican Party a second look.

I used to be a hardcore Republican, but, while I agreed with the GOP on most issues, I eventually found myself unable to remain a supporter of a party that undermined two of its core values (the government staying out of people's lives and equal rights for all) by attempting to limit my freedoms and rights. As Gemini so wisely said, "Rights are not ours to give or take, only to ENFORCE." I believe he is correct - that I have a fundamental right to love and marry whomever I wish (as long as they are a consenting adult), and that it's the government's (and, as the supposed true supporters of the Constitution and of individual liberty, the Republicans') job to enforce it.

My problem with the Republican party is that it has been hijacked by the religious right, even though religion should play no part in politics. Meghan is standing up for true Republicanism, which I think earns her a voice. And she is making people like me think, "If the Republican Party were to follow the advice of true Republicans like Meghan, I would again be proud to call myself one."

Look at it this way: when Martin Luther King spoke, people listened, and people followed. That's how he earned the right to be considered a voice for the Rights movement. In her much, much smaller way, Meghan is doing the same thing, and people like me are paying attention to what she has to say.

Cheers.

PS. And, before anyone asks how it is that I can consider an issue like equal rights for gays more important than fiscal responsibility, let me say this: Greece is not remembered for its wealth or its balanced budget, but for its democracy. Before we were ever a rich country, we were a nation founded on freedom and equality for all. THAT ideal is what made/makes us great. If I were ever in charge of deciding between the U.S. being a wealthy country or a place where everyone is free and treated equally and fairly, there would be no contest. Without the latter, we are no longer America.

PPS. McCain sold out to the religious right. He pretended he was just as extreme as they were. And they suspected he was only pretending, so a lot of them didn't vote for him. Meanwhile, people like me worried he wasn't pretending, and so we didn't vote for him, either. If he had run on the same principles he had in 2000, I might very well have voted for him.

sorry, no.

republicans turned their back on true conservatism when they rejected ayn rand's argument that religious zealotry undermines individualism.

i've yet to meet a republican who was a true conservative. it seems the true believers are all libertarians now.

The best conservatives are now Democrats.

The civil rights movement was opposed by Democrats who then immediately left the party and began voting Republican. Go back and look at the voting records of the Southern states that now vote overwhelmingly Republican. Just because they changed their affiliation does not mean they've changed their attitudes and beliefs. This argument is about the Republicans in 2009, not 1859, or 1960. Nice try.

Yeah jds8181, that makes a whole lot of sense...

Republican:
Lincoln - freed the slaves, made emancipation a platform of the Republican part, was for equal rights for all.

Democrat:
Southern slave owners.

Republican:
Martin Luther King - leader and embodiment of the civil rights movement.

Democrat:
George McGovern - segregationist, against civil-rights.

But, as soon as the civil rights bill passed (by the racist LBJ) all of those Southerns became Republicans so that they could continue their racist ways.....that makes a whole bunch of sense. How convenient that you can just dismiss the facts for your little fantasy.

As mentioned above, don't believe what one party says another party believes. They are inevitably lying.

OK, you're right, how elected officials voted on the actual Civil Rights bill means nothing. All that matters is how the electoral college voted every 4 years (including 1976, when Carter won the south). Whew, you guys convinced me, Republicans have always hated the blacks, jews, women and especially the gays. I'm glad you guys convinced with your rhetoric, because the facts have been clouding my vision for so long now. I'll just forget that I lived through those years...yep, Alzheimer's runs in my family, I must be mistaken.

Let me see, the internet....real life experience....hmmm. Yep, now I remember the day that George Wallace changed his party affiliation from Democrat to....wait, that was the American Independence Party or something...no, it must of been Republican, two anonymous goofs on the internet said so.

Oh, and I love how the goal posts change, its a fascinating look into the illogical mind of liberals today.

Freed the Slaves = That was 100 years ago, total opposite of Republicans today.

Civil Rights = Those were Republicans in disguise and we're talking about the bigots of today, not 40 years ago old man!

Again, Martin Luther King was a Republican. Go ahead, call him a racist and say he didn't matter to the Civil Rights movement accept his death propelled the bill through Congress...is there any way you won't twist the truth to make your illogical beliefs fit your warped ideology?