Reddog Loc: Southern Calif

The point he called them hypocrites for doing the same thing he just did!!!!!

rrforster12 Loc: Leesburg Florida

In my opinion there are extremists in both party's that tend to put out radical viewpoints. I believe that Obama is extreme in his insistence that his view is the only valid path for our Country to take, and any variance to that path will not be tolerated. His "My way or nothing" position has stalled most progress in forging solutions to our problems. The response to that position by the Repubs has been that "the Nothing" is preferable to knuckling under to Obamas demands, so here we stay, locked in gridlock. The solution is for each side to give up a little on their demands There is no doubt that the Dems have been winning the PR game, but that most likely is because they control most of the Press, and their side is able to paint most every situation to portray the Repubs as the "Bad Guys" The few voices that the Repubs have in Talk Radio and Cable TV tend to then sound shrill and out of touch because the preponderance of media and entertainment voices deprecate them so constantly for not seeing the world as they do. Just think what we would have if everyone did see the same way as our dear leaders; its called a Dictatorship! Is not the open discourse of two or more points of view a healthier choice for our country? Be careful what you wish for. When Obama has both Houses under his total control all we got was Obamacare, and we are only just beginning to see what a complete mess that is turning out to be.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

And I don't remember asking your permission to give it, nor do I need it. Just because you got your face rubbed in your own bullshit no need to get feisty. Just like you said you were going to keep it short because you were above all this crap---blah, blah, blah............

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

So what category do those who get married by a judge W/O any religious affiliation fall under??

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

AND once more it's Obama's fault. Very well written but saying the same old Tea Party ideologies...........

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

In the eyes of the government there would only be civil unions, which would carry the full protections of state and federal laws... Marriage should not be in the purview of the government, this includes what we currently call traditional marriage, the government has no business in any marriage, just in the legal contract of a civil union... that way everybody is happy and everybody gets the same protections.

If people want to get married they can do so in the church but it will hold no legal ramifications...

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

So those who are married in the church do not fit under your guidelines of the civil unions administered by the government. Lets do away with marriage and just have civil unions thus totally removing the church from the equation. Everyone is married in a civil service and are then entitled to all benefits of all unions---problem solved. Heaven forbid............lol

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

To be legally married you would have to enter a civil union, it is simply replacing the marriage license with a civil union license that should satisfy the state and allow the state to apply benefits and laws that are applicable to such a union... If traditional marriage is important to people they would turn to the church or some other institution for that ceremony. Very simple solution that allows for equal treatment under the law without having our government define for us what marriage means.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

Sounds good to me---as long as ALL are treated equally and receive the benefits they deserve. Pretty easy compromise and done in about 45 minutes. Now why can't our government---never mind it would be rhetorical anyway. Have a good one.........

NOSLEEP Loc: Calgary

Now that you have it all figured out. I hope you have made it inclusive for everyone. Are you for equal rights or just rights equal to your standards. It must include anyone over the age of majority, and that in itself sounds troubling and oppressive, as some are more mature than others under or over the age of majority. A man or woman with pursuit of multiple partners and or consensual family members ie: brothers & sisters and brothers & brothers and sisters & sisters. We know how man thinks, some are more equal than others... Lets make it fair to all or lets just leave it as is...

Here is how Peter from Family Guy would handle it... lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=I6f_ws-8GOQ&feature=endscreen

Reddog Loc: Southern Calif

And I thought all this time it was the GOP doing all the filibusters, Imagine that!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Whatever, the laws are going to change so all you can do is decide what change you can live with... and no you don't get to marry a horse or your favorite cow... or even your sister or brother or your 15 closest friends... Personally I don't like the redefinition of marriage, but I also think that the current DOMA case before the supreme court brings legitimate questions concerning how the current law gives preference to heterosexual relationships in regards to taxes and a host of other things such as insurance benefits and even hospital visitation, there is reason to understand that this is not quite fair... The polling is 60/40 and the numbers supporting equal legal rights will only grow... It is time that people who are fighting against the redefinition of marriage focus on how to defend their traditional beliefs while making the legal accommodation for gay couples, the laws are going to change, be it now or 10 years from now...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Good comment.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

LOL.. Not your best comment when you give it even just a little bit of thought...

Reddog Loc: Southern Calif

Have I missed a recent filibuster by the Dems? Please enlighten me.