Just because her Father cannot love women is no reason that his daughter should have to give up her Mother in exchange for a redundant “dad”.

That would be cruel and unusual.

But, back to you my dear withywindle, I don’t need the government’s acceptance. It has none to grant because that’s not the business it’s in. I just need the same rights straight couples get, so I can protect my family someday.

Occasionally WC Fields is the only source:

Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail and face the situation.

From the left side of the mouth comes: “I don’t need the government’s acceptance.” From the right side of the mouth comes: “I just need the same rights….” That is to say, just have the guvmint enforce the rights I want and buzz off on all other issues that I’m not into.

What a concept! Government as first responder to personal whim and strict wallflower when so directed.

I will call Fort Knox in the morning for my personal delivery.

The more we turn to government, the less we do to solve our own problems and the more power we cede to the state, according us less freedom to respond responsibly to social change.

This speaks to the core principle of conservatism. Societal differences are worked out at the local level in the public square. To use the force of government to compel a solution is as radical as to submit to the threat of destruction by the KKK or other form of mob rule.

As a Republican, I have a great dislike and distrust of many current Republican members of Congress. I am not alone. Therefore, the Democrats should be in a position to strengthen their hold on both houses.

But, a significant number of Democrat candidates and Congressional freshmen are not part of the far left. Reid and Pelosi are continually stymied by defectors within their party on votes that are critical to their leadership. While Rahm Emanuel did a great job recruiting candidates in 2006, he did not make party line loyalty a litmus test.

The Democrat candidates in 2008 range from weak soup to leftist fanatics. But importantly, many are closer to home at the center and center right than with the party leadership.

If the Republicans take a drubbing, so be it. It is past time that my party’s chattering class realizes that conservatism is not an evolving institution. It is based on bedrock beliefs and the application of tried and true principles.

In the meantime, the pendulum of Democrat representation in Congress is swinging right, not left. That is small comfort to me, but if we Republicans can’t do better than revisionists like McCain, Gingrich and Bush then we will have to be satisfied with a more thoughtful group of Democrats.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html

She ran the wrong campaign in the end, the change thing became a huge driving factor. Obama and his campaign were able to make her into….Bush lite. They basically connected her to everything that was wrong with DC, which was Bush and his administration at first. I just find it amazing when I am reading other left wing blogs and basically they keep repeating that she is just like any Republican. That is the stupidest thing ever uttered. What Republican has pushed universal health care, pretty much staked their reputation on it? And the policy differences are so small between Obama and Hillary..so that means Obama is also a Republican?

I basically realized how stupid and crazy the left wing is from this election.

In all honest, can anyone really stop Obama? It would be really hard to win that battle with his demographics in a democratic primary. He seems to constantly bounce back and its seems nothing affects his support, but then I don’t see what will stop African Americans from voting for him. I don’t know, he seems unstoppable to me.

Granted, up until very recently, there has been a sexual difference regarding marriage. But your examples of when there were same-sex married couples in the past having to feign the sexual differences shows exactly how things have changed (and for the better, in my opinion). We don’t require the man to work and the woman stay at home any more. And we certainly don’t require men to kill a bear and wear her ovaries any more.

So many of the traditional roles of men and women in the past have gone by the wayside. Marriage easily adjusted to these changes. And we see that marriage has been extended to those who cannot or do not want to have children. Marriage has adjusted by accepting these additional changes. Now I think it’s a natural extension to now allow those of the same sex to get married.

So I don’t see the extension of marriage to two men or two women akin to marrying more than two or more persons and certainly not one involving non-human life forms. Even with polygamy in the past (or in some that exist today), the “wedding” consecrated two people, not the other wives. And we’ve seen that even this brand of polygamy has been phased out in Western culture, because of the harm it’s caused to society and the inherent inequality.

I am not arguing one way or another whether marriages involving more than two persons are good, bad, or indifferent. I tend to think they will not be a benefit to society, although arrangements in which all parties are regarded as equals would be preferable to the traditional polygamy model. I’ll leave it to others to argue if they believe it’s more beneficial to society. I don’t think they can argue it’s a logical extension of allowing same-sex couples to marry.

As we have that necessary conversation on gay marriage, we need to understand the reality of that institution. Sexual difference is part of that reality.

The United States has two attributes which separates it from other nations: 1) We govern ourselves in strict accord with our written and little changed Constitution, and; 2) we are a largely religious nation with multiple sects that are rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic.

When an issue of law rises to the Supreme Court, one of the first tests applied is whether the state has a compelling interest in restricting an individual’s freedom in exchange for a greater societal benefit. In regard to gay marriage, two questions arise: 1) How does society as whole benefit from gay marriage, and; 2) what detriment accrues to society in denying gay marriage?

As of yet, I have seen no compelling reason for the state to enter into the issue of changing its marriage requirements. Gays are not prohibited from marrying. What many gays wish is to have the same sex restriction removed. In doing so, the court is thrust into examining the basis for the change and testing the overall compelling state interest in making the change.

It appears that the main reason gays favor gay marriage is in the pursuit of their own happiness. This is not a basis for compelling state interest. Gay marriage and polygamy are no different in their basis for a desired change in the state requirements. The polygamists may have a slight edge in that they can cloud the issue with references to the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition.

Our culture has evolved since 1789, but not radically. The Constitution has been amended only a few times and most of the amendments tinker with process. The thirteenth and eighteenth amendments were our two forays into radical change. The thirteenth came on the heels of violent and forceful change which is often the catalyst for radical change. The eighteenth amendment was so poorly conceived and impossibly beyond any enforcement of the compelling state interest that it was neutered by the twenty-first amendment.

Since we are a largely religious nation, the Judeo-Christian ethic has a tremendous influence on our culture, traditions and ethos. The state has set marriage requirements and will override religious practices that ignore the requirements. However, there are only occasional conflicts between the state requirements and the religious practices of some rare sect.

Many gays seem to want to bypass religion and particularly those sects that see engaging in homosexual acts as a sin. These gays assume that the state should find a compelling state reason to silence the religions.

What Indians, the ancient Greeks, modern Swedes or the Conch Republic do or have done is of very little importance to “We the People” in the application of our laws.

I think it is unfortunate that the gay marriage issue carries the umbrella of gays-lesbians-transgendered-bisexual relationships with it.

In all seriousness, why shouldn’t a bisexual governor of New Jersey not have a male spouse and a female spouse? If these are consenting adults…………

Modern liberalism has evolved into a change for the sake of change tradition that denigrates stodgy tradition. It is sees a constant upward spiral of improvement and happiness based on compelling the society to be hopeful and accepting “enlightened reformation.”

Realistically, “enlightened reformation” can not be imposed in a constitutional democracy where “We the People” are the final arbiters. Modern liberals must control the courts in order to bypass the Constitutional democracy. They rely on the courts to impose “change” on the unwilling masses.

Until gays can articulate the compelling reason that society in general will benefit from changing the marriage requirements, the best gays can hope for is a patchwork system of civil unions.

Cultures do evolve. But it takes time and positive experiences for long standing traditions to shift. Currently, our universities are awash in “diversity studies” and there is an on-going push for “hate crimes” and monitoring of political correctness in speech and action. These are all signs that modern liberalism can not win the debate, so it has made its opinions a matter for adjudication rather than discussion.

For many, what I have written is typical homophobe boilerplate. But at the same time, those same folks will not take the time or be able to provide unemotional, point by point counter argument. That, in a nut shell, it the state of the gay marriage issue.

you are still outside banging on the doors screaming, “BUT INFERTILE COUPLES CAN MARRY!!!!”

Here’s an interesting point about infertility and marriage. In Jewish law, which some of us think is about 4000 years old - infertility is a reason for divorce.

Unlike Catholicism, divorce is available in Jewish law. It is highly discouraged, and one cannot get one on a whim. But if a woman is infertile for 10 years, (in those days, since the woman bore the children, infertility was only her fault) the man could divorce her for that reason alone, so he could remarry and have children. And this at a time when polygamy existed, though as Dan stated, was probably only available to the upper classes.

Another point, laws are made for society at large, not for every small little sub group. Certain subgroups who will only benefit and not contribute - such as infertile couples, older couples beyond the age of conception. Or even a mentally disabled couple who will be discouraged from having children - will be allowed to marry.

That doesn’t change the basic tenet that marriage is about producing nuclear families. For every rule there are exceptions.

Fatherlessness is always tragic. Orientation is hardly an excuse.

However, infringing on the civil liberties of others because your subjective religion admonishes it clearly is ANTI-AMERICAN in every respect.

If marriage is going to be part of government (which I do not think it should be to begin with) then it must be afforded to all individuals who seek its benefit(s).

If discrimination of marriage is to be decided for only certain members of the society, then it is disenfranchising other members and cannot continue to be part of the framework of government; nor should it be. One’s distaste for homosexuality should not be legislated into law - this is ANTI-AMERICAN in every sensibility.

Any law or subject for public discussion must be reduced to the simplest objective reflection of our nation in order to embrace ALL AMERICANS and not discriminate against any one majority or minority group.

Often in NY I’ve met celebrities who disappoint with their “true” personalities upon exit from the theater, not Julie. She was gracious to everyone who wanted to say hello and extend well wishes. She is impeccable and radiates in person similar, but unlike what you see on the screen, it was so much more in person. It’s truly an honor meeting someone of her caliber. Not many I would say that about in the entertainment industry. (ask about my Dennis Leary story sometime - eek!)

Last night I saw the Lincoln Center performance of Camelot and all of Julie’s qualities came rushing back into my memory of listening to her as a child growing up.

I’m glad you found such inspiration from a woman who refuses to be a victim to anyone or anything and who continues to entertain, inspire and bring enrichment to all our lives through her performances and individuality.

Cheers!

Cheers! and many more millions to come.