Adam

No, but I sure can call them a jerk. I have a lot of friends who are backwards redneck hicks. Many of them are in favor of gay marriage. OC- if I am not mistaken, you are the one who talks about unintended consequences, as far as changing laws. Now I consider that pretty well thought out, but I want to pose a question that may involve things that aren't directly related. Our legal system is known for unintended consequences- the notion of innocent until proven guilty, many times will result in the guilty going free, in order to protect the innocent from a false conviction. So, what do you think about the unintended consequence of the innocent gay community not being able to marry and live like everyone else, because we are worried about when may stem from it (interfamilial marriages, etc...)

It is a sad and terrible world. I couldn't finish reaading the story and nearly threw up.

I just have to wonder- since our country, like others, sanitizes its history. Is this what it felt like to watch the battle over segregation. Gotta wonder if both sides handled it this poorly. I know this will sort itself out at some point, and they will get their right to marriage (as long as the Mayans aren't right). I just hope they aren't left waiting too long, because of it being a wedge issue, as you said. I know we will hear a number of stories about someone dying the day before the laws are taken care of. Politics just plain sucks and I don't see that situation getting better during my lifetime.

Problem is that is an argument that never convinces anyone. Insults are not a good persuasive method.

You hit the nail on the head- for good people, religion is intrinsic and a reason to do good for others for no particular gain. For others, it is like bureaucracy and is just their to continually build on itself.

Even more ironic- “I came for the marriage amendment,” said Daryl Carter of Midway. “I am for it because I believe it is a biblical way that God wants us to live our lives. I go by what the Bible says and not what man says.” Yep, there is no irony in that statement.

That would be nice, but it is unrealistic, unfortunately. In a world full of diverse viewpoints, different people follow different logic, to reach different conclusions. And they usually get overly emotional when defending their conclusions.

Yes, but that will cause other problems- what if some religions recognize it, then certain people in government don't want to recognize the marriages in some religions they disagree with? (at least when it comes to benefits)

Southeastern New Mexico

It is not the religion that is the problem. Not in the least. Don't group people together who don't fit together. No, but like any other system, there are flaws. Yep, if it were so easy to make everything perfect, somebody would have done it already. Problem is that no two people have the same definition of perfect, and few care what anyone else's definition is.

I think we are getting this wrong. There is nothing wrong with the Christians who follow their religion. It is good and it's teachings are good. It is the extremist Christians that are a political movement. They don't like our freedom......oh, wait.......

It has to be a 50/50 race, just based on the fact of the sheer number of people who will just vote party line. The people who will research the candidates are part of the tipping point and how mobilized the party line voters are, is another major wildcard. It won't be a blow out, like 2008, that's for sure.

LOL, at my age, I tend to get confused.

Did he pay his fair share? Oh, sorry.....wrong board

That's fine- I will just leave it at this- while he was a slime as a human being, he should not have been impeached.

?????

Maybe he isn't a socialist president either. Maybe they are making him to look like one

I believe he was for banning of the placement of reading materials in the bathroom.

All the cases are jumbled, it is hard to keep track of what's what. He obviously is a man of low moral character, but Monica Lewinsky is irrelevant to both cases.

I am not as familiar with that. I will definitely have to look into it though! Thanks!

He was impeached for lying about Monica Lewinsky during the Whitewater case. That topic wasn't relevant to the case at hand, so it could.t be perjury and was thrown out. Is that what you are asking about- I am over tired, so I may be misreading it. Aside from that, he seemed to be a decent president in some regards, even if he wasn't a great person.

he was asked a question that was completely irrelevant to the Whitewater case and lied about it. Because it was irrelevant, the question and answer were tossed, making it dishonorable, but not illegal.

the lie was tossed out of the case, because it wasn't perjury. That doesn't mean it wasn't idiotic.

President Clinton wasn't very smart to lie about the whole thing, but there was no valid reason to impeach him. President Bush didn't have to make up anything. There was valid reason to go into Iraq. We should have paid for the war though.

I haven't heard the affordable health care act defended by a single person. It was done quickly and very sloppy. I think I remember seeing a conservative on thw board actually saying he would have preferred single paper to it. I wouldn't mind seeing it gone. It won't affect me that much either way, but it looks as if it would damage others.