Adam

Why should anyone even give a flying !@#$?. People should mind their own business on some things

If it has to be a right defined by the government, I propose this: "Any one citizen of the United States or legally defined immigrant has the right to marriage to any other one citizen of the United States or legally defined immigrant, which is not a direct familial relation (sibling/parent). I think that greatly simplifies things

It is agenda based as usual, but I wish we would stop seeing corporate "sponsorships." The Obama campaign set a terrible precedent. Soon the rich will be able to buy the government....some would claim that day has already come

Ok, I think I understand your viewpoint- as long as the word marriage means zero to the government, anyone who wants to marry can, and if they are obstructed, they are free to create their own religion to do so. I think I would be ok with that, and I think it would financially motivate churches not to deny them

Either way. Do you see any problem with either scenerio

I am assuming then, you wouldn't mind if atheists got married then. They could claime to be a religion and then marry

Just remember- I wasn't kidding about naming myself a priest in the name of Aphrodite and conducting marriages for whomever wants it!

Must be your birthday

Obama was born in this country. That's how it is. Bush had nothing to do with 9/11. That's how it is. MORE than 1 out of 4 Americans are morons. That's how it is.

Not what I meant- America elected him. They couldn't come up with another candidate in this wonderful two-party system. To be honest, I don't think that he is incompetent, nor was Bush. I think we have made our government so bureaucratic that the job can't be done. There is a solution, but people would cry "lunatic" to anyone who suggests it.

Just remember "Some are more equal than others"

If I can add on something to OC's last post- if a couple was attending a church that didn't want to marry them, wouldn't they be best off leaving that church to begin with, as the philosophical differences would lead to future clashes over any number of things.

Is it Obama we should be mad at, or the American people, themselves? We put the politicians in office, then blame them for everything......where is the accountability.

I apologize, but the tedium o going back through the thread is just too great and I don't want to put somebody else's words in your mouth. Do you think it possible to redefine marriage at this point? I have a feeling that it would go over much like Prohibition did. I can also see a scenerio in which one religion performs gay marriage, and gets attacked by terrorists, like what happened to the abortion doctor.

For those who want marriage to be tied to religion- what would keep me from immediately declaring myself as a priest of the Goddess Aphrodite, and offering to perform better marriages to whomever wanted them- marriages that would indeed by blessed?

Are you saying that you are for leaving marriage to religion- there is no sarcasm here, I just am asking your stance, so I don't have to dig through the 1,000's of posts in this thread

Why do they have to be so defined? If groups splinter off, all the better. The more choices we have, the better the country can become. The two-party system has been a complete and utter failure

OK, I will play the devils' advocate and say you are tight- wouldn't this be the PERFECT opportunity for the Right to "give ground" and act like they are conceding something? Could make the left look bad later on, when the right is looking to make a compromise- that's what stupid politics are in this stupid country though- one side tries to damage the other side in order to get more power.

Americans in general use bad political judgment and bad judgment with just about everything.

I honestly don't understand why it even is an issue. It doesn't affect heterosexual marriage, as the opposition claims. If you are against it, just don't do it. This is just a case of america being america.

I prefer 1 great player to 2 mediocre players.

An impressive bunch of teams. I never said Fitzpatrick can't improve. Personally, I don't think we have seen the best of either guy.....how could we, behind the ragtag line we have

The TEAM was 5-4 against which opponents? How did we match up with those teams- did somebody on our team have a standout game, or did someone on the opposing team have a subpar game? Neither QB has been able to show a heck of a lot, but we aren't good enough to claim that it is all about QB play. The worst line play in the league has made our QBs tentative. Whoever loses the battle should be our starting LT. And by the way, as a statistician, I can tell you for certain, that QB's don't get win/loss records like pitchers do- nor are there unearned points. Despite the fact that Flutie "Just Wins"

Same circumstances? Same opponents, same plays run in the same formations under the same conditions? Please.... We have bigger problems than QB and you will have to accept that. We have what we have and Edwards is probebly the best of that bunch

Unless Gailey can teach him to have better protection in front of him, you can expect the same results. Particularly with Evans as the #1 WR