Ellen DeGeneres To Sen. McCain: "There is an Old Way of Thinking That We Are Not All Alike"

Photo of Terry Ann Rendon.

Sen. McCain sits with Ellen

Today Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made an appearance on the daytime program "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," and the topic quickly turned to the issue of same-sex marriage. The issue arose after Ms. DeGeneres revealed on her show last Friday that she will be marrying her parter, Portia de Rossi. The marriage announcement came a day after the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage. View video here.

Here's a partial transcript of the conversation:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

JOHN McCAIN: My thoughts are that I think people should be able to enter into legal agreements and I think that is something we should encouraage, in particularly in the case of insurance and in other areas. Decisions need to be made. I just believe in the unique status of marriage, between a man and a woman, and I know we have a respectful disagreement on that issue.

ELLEN DeGENERES: Yeah, I think it is looked as and some people are saying the same that blacks and women did not have the right to vote. I mean women just got the right to vote 1920. Blacks didn't have the right to vote until 1870 and it just feels that there is an old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people. You are no different than I am. Our love is the same. So, to me what it feels like just, you know, I speak for myself when someone says you can have a contract and you can still have insurance and you will get all that, it sounds to me like saying you can sit there but just can't sit there. It doesn't feel feel inclusive. It feels isolated. We aren't owed the same things.

Update: The episode aired today not yesterday, as my first paragraph describes.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Go Gophers

Ellen's response reminds me of an old cartoon I used to watch as a kid. In the opening it shows one gopher mummbling something unintelligible. The chief then asks another indian, "what him say?" And I say, "what her say?"

What these people are looking for is that some "authority" will "legitimize" their sin so they can ease their defiled conscience for their violation of God's law.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis

GO GO GOPHERS WATCH'EM GO

GO GO GOPHERS WATCH'EM GO GO GO

 

 

 

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
 -Thomas Jefferson

and the peds Ellen - can

and the peds Ellen - can they have a seat too?

animal lovers?

you're not an "old thinker" right, Ellen?

Father and Mother

Everyone should have a father and mother because their are differences between the way the sexes relate. Homosexual behavior is extremely sexist and should not be tolerated. How sexist of them to prevent children from having a father and a mother.

Now they want to legalize their intolerance or "legitamize" as you would say.

http://www.ornery.org/

McCain is Old Fashioned!

Here is late breaking news: McCain is old and old fashioned.  Big whoop.  The problem is people thinking marriage should be a government issue.  Guess what, its not!  Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman and it has been that way FOREVER!!!  So yes that way of thinking is old fashioned as the oldest One of all of us made it that way (I'm speaking of GOD, if you didn't pick that up).  Sorry Ellen, I like you, but marriage is a religious issue not a government issue.

Old fashioned

What I don't get is why would people whose very lifestyle is rebellion against societal norms and traditions, etc. want to associate themselves with an old-fashioned institution like marriage?

Ms. Degenerate says now she can "celebrate her love." B.S.! Nobody stopped her from "celebrating her love" before. This all so much crap.

To me it proves that this gay marriage movement is nothing but a desperate attempt to gain official government sanction and societal acceptance for their deviant lifestyle.

and that's what makes it so

and that's what makes it so groovily rebellious! brilliant...

We are NOT all alike

DeGeneres: "There is an Old Way of Thinking That We Are Not All Alike:

Ms soon to be Mr (?) DeGeneres, we are NOT all alike. To say differently is moronic. What happened to your "we are all special, we are all individuals, multiculturalism, we need our self esteem? I guess that does not fit your agenda anymore.

 

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

Isn't that the Truth!

Men and women are not created equally.  They have different parts and even our brains are wired differently and there is NOTHING wrong with men and women being different.  Sheesh!  Just wait 5 minutes and they will change their agenda again! 

Marriage is a Religious Sacrament

I have always thought of marriage on religious terms. I take gay marriage as an attack on religion.  I'm not that familiar with legal things, but I still don't understand why someone doesn't sue on the basis that it infringes on a religious belief system.

What do they want?

What is it that they want?  Do they want joint insurance or being able to call their significant other a spouse?  They can do all that without being "married".  This whole issue bothers me because I do not want the government to say that religious institutions that oppose gay marriage have to conduct said marriages or the government will step in.  Separation of church and state is more than having God removed from our schools, but liberals don’t care about that as it doesn’t further their agenda.

Marriage is a Religious Issue

"This whole issue bothers me because I do not want the government to say that religious institutions that oppose gay marriage have to conduct said marriages or the government will step in."

I agree.  It's dangerous ground and we need to protect religious belief in this country. 

Yep

Liberals yell, separation of church and state too keep our youth from praying in schools (of course not any prayers, just Christian prayers), but then they are trying to creep in and say that gay marriage is a "right" and force churches to hold such ceremonies as it is unconstitutional not to.  Very dangerous.

Yikes

Oops Again.

Oops!

Posted twice, sorry!

Remember- the doctrine of

Remember- the doctrine of separation of Church and State was meant to protect religion from the incursions of the government. It is usually Caesar that wants what belongs to God, not the other way around.

True

but that goes only so far as to fit their agenda.  I really can see government stepping in to make churches marry gay people calling it unconstitutional to deny them that.

Gay Adoption

It's not beyond the realm of the conceivable.  An adoption agency in the Boston area that was run by the Catholic Church was closed down because they refused to allow gays to adopt children.  Nobody even blinked when that happened.

My Spouse

I just don't want to have to specify that I am married to a woman when I tell someone that I am married. It should be obvious as it has always been. Let them find another word for it - make one up if necessary!

Definition of

Definition of marriage:

1. limited to 2 people (this rule excludes polygamists who want to marry multiple partners)

2. the couple must consist of 1 man and 1 woman (this rule excludes homosexuals who want to marry same sex)

3. both individuals must be within legal age (this rule excludes pedofiles who want to marry a child)

4. both individuals cannot be closely related (this rule excludes incestuous marriages)

So answer me this, Ellen. Why do gays have a special constitutional right to break one of the rules of marriage? 

Living Constitution

You forget, in the liberal mindset they have a living constitution. Translation: it means what I want it to mean at this particular moment.

The reasoning of the court is quite unreasonable and politically driven. They could very easily justify any of the cases given using the same line of thinking. Expect this ruling to be exploited. The poly-minor-incestuous-interspecies want to celebrate their love too.

Democracy

In a democracy the judicial branch does not have the authority to legislate, voters decide. The idea of altering the CA constitution from the bench is frightening.

JDW

If you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment but when congress says ANWR it means you don't care about the gasoline prices

Racism is off limits, but

Racism is off limits, but age discrimination isn't...Wow..wait 'til Ellen gets old.

What Ellen wants to do is

What Ellen wants to do is called a civil union...don't call it marriage because that's not what it is.

"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather

Your love may be the same Ellen - but the family structure

you want to create isn't.

Children deserve to have a father. If they don't have a realistic possibility of getting one then gay parents are better than no parents, but it's not the same and it never will be. A boy deserves a father who understands his unique physical and physiological and emotional problems and a girl deserves a mother for the same things. Both benefit from also having a parent of the opposite sex to help them understand and appreciate the other sex.

The best way for children to be raised is by a loving non abusive mother and father. All couples can be abusive whether they are gay or straight and single people can be just as abusive too but only one type of situation can give a child both a mother and a father. That is marriage - or at least it should be.


This in no way means that single parents or gay parents should be looked down on or ostracized. It only means that people should not deny what is best for children just to make some adults feel better.

Sodomites

What Ellen Degenerate has apparently forgotten is that God almost totally destroyed New Orleans because of sodomite sin like hers.  Will she be able to ignore a huge earthquake in California that causes the sea to rush in there, as well?

»→ Anderson

Did you receive this message directly from God?

Are you telling the truth?  Or is this conjecture?

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Anderson - don't you think God would be more concerned

with rape, murder, pedophilia? If God were striking people down for their sins, how would they ever find their way to him? Everyone sins.

It's not our job to point out other's sins unless it harms innocents. We all have our own sins and those should be our primary focus when it comes to pleasing God.

»→ Dee

Anderson seems to think drowning a bunch of poor people is God's way of telling homosexuals to change their ways.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

He is wrong Cool. Gods way

He is wrong Cool. Gods way of dealing with homosexuals has to do with raining fire and brimstone on em...

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

»→ bass

I'm pretty much of the opinion "The way of the transgressor is hard"

If I slug down 20 cokes a day I should expect Diabetes.

If I drink to excess I should expect cirrhosis.

If I rob homes I should expect incarceration or a violent death.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Good points Cool. Save a

Good points Cool.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Sodomites can't swim

If Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John McCain’s minister Rev. John Hagey say that God drowned the Sodomites in New Orleans, that’s good enough for me.  You can bet the chickens will be soon coming home to roost in the Sodom kingdom of California, too.  Let’s pray that the good people of California vote against gay marriage and give the Sodomites the drubbing they deserve before God punishes all of them with a chicken roost catastrophe unseen before in the annals of mankind.

the epitomy..

with rape, murder, pedophilia? If God were striking people down for their sins, how would they ever find their way to him? Everyone sins.

It's not our job to point out other's sins unless it harms innocents. We all have our own sins and those should be our primary focus when it comes to pleasing God.  

Yes we are all human and none of us are perfect but, there are some of us who try to stay on the straight and narrow, and when we fall off, we get right back on the straight and narrow instead of making lame excuses.

Bless you Dee for giving us an example of haow a warped mind reasons. Thanks.

Ditto LTK!

Your point doesn't contradict mine but it seems that you think it does. That is kind of warped. ; )

If you are indirectly trying to defend the idea that God caused Katrina and the resulting flooding to punish Gay people then that is for sure warped reasoning.

Huh, who'd have guessed?

I thought the storm surge from Katrina flooded it. I think if God wanted it gone, it'd be a blank space on the shore of lake ponchatrain.

 

 

God's Protection

While I don't believe that God initiated the flood that destroyed New Orleans, I do believe that He pulled His protection back from the city.  But I believe God pulling back His protection had more to do with the US pressuring Israel to give up the Gaza Strip.

God almost totally

God almost totally destroyed New Orleans...

So, what's his excuse for not destroying Las Vegas yet? Or San Francisco? Why is Hollywood still standing? Why is Thailand still around?

Ignore those! God's apparently shirkin' the destruction-job!!

Key West is both an easy target for hurricanes and Key West is just about as gay as gay ever gets (especially around Fantasy Fest, from what I hear, but I avoid the Keys during that time BECAUSE of all the people!). Even including San Francisco. And keep in mind, Fantasy Fest happens DURING hurricane season...
JMR

PS Please, Oh Lord and Creator of All Things, make one big hurricane hit during this socialist's term as Florida's governor, so there's at least a tiny chance that Florida's idiotic voters will blame him & his socialist policies for the impending failure/disaster they're going to cause! I beseech thee!!

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Wrath of God

Ours is a mysterious God.  We cannot know all of His ways.

Oh, he's mysterious, but

Oh, he's mysterious, but only when it doesn't fit into your rhetoric about destroying cities for being sinful. Gotcha.

Mystery

It's also a mystery why God created Sodomites in the first place.  In my weaker moments I have wondered if God likes bowling; setting pins up only to knock them down with proverbial balls of wrath.

I have only 1 question

Why do Republicans continue to insist on going into these liberal venues, into the bowells of Sodom and Gamorrah, so that these side show freaks can place them in uncomfortable positions to rauccus applause from a stacked audience, while their modest reponses are laughed at, hooted, booed and drowned out?

These fools do their best to make decent Conservative people LOOK LIKE fools. That is their sole reason for having Conservatives on and they do a good job of it. Just stay away from all of them and let them carry out their freakish lives. Who cares? 

 

Why?

"Why do Republicans continue to insist on going into these liberal venues"

Same reason Democrats think they can have talks with Ahmadinejad.

buckeye, actually I think

buckeye, actually I think McCain came off looking quite good, IMHO.  I respect anyone (even a Liberal) that has the gonads to go into enemy territory, look the adversary the eye (on national television) and say "I stand on principle" without losing composure or showing disrespect to the other.

very well and succinctly stated.

very well and succinctly stated.

I have to agree with Ellen

I have to agree with Ellen on this and am in favor of not only same-sex marriages but also same-person marriages. This would allow individuals like myself - a total loser who is unable to attract a partner but, at the same time, someone who masterbates a lot (compulsively, in fact) - to marry themselves. Before you say "That's ridiculous" or "That's a lot more information than I needed to know", consider that blacks didn't have the right to vote until only 140 years ago.

»→ Krendler

Taking matters into your own hands is not the answer.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

hysterical! Both of you

I laughed loudly

Krendler!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Krendler, I gotta tellya. It took me at least 10 minutes to be able to calm down and wipe the tears from my eyes so that I could reply.

In all the years I've been reading Newsbusters, thats got to be the FUNNIEST reply that I've ever seen. My wife was sitting behind me and she had to come over and see why I was laughing so hard.

Ah, man! You outa be on TV.

Wow, who would have thought

Wow, who would have thought that allowing blacks and women to vote would open the door for all sorts of moral corruption.

...and yes before someone gets mad this is tounge in cheek and sarcastic.

 

"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather

And what about animal lovers

And what about animal lovers who don't relate well to people. They say that dog is man's best friend. Why won't you let folks marry thier best friend, for crying out loud. Isn't that what marriage is really all about? It's like you are saying, you can sit here but not here. Like there is some sort of hateful stigma and bigotry surrounding a natural and fulfilling relationship. If you oppose this, you are no different that the slave traders and nazis.

krendler - I will now start

krendler - I will now start searching through all replies to topics to read what you have to say

 

that was awesome!!!!

Too Late

Actually you are about 10 years too late.  Several years ago, Queen Latifah married herself.

http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200503/20050325/slide_20050325_104.jhtml

At that age i was a cronic

At that age i was a cronic masterbater too....kinda still am....in fact I would be doing right now if i had my stuff with me

 

 

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
 -Thomas Jefferson

Left your stuff on the

Left your stuff on the nightstand? Clip-ons or velcro?

niether it's a line from

niether

it's a line from the show "Frisky Dingo" that fit

 

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
 -Thomas Jefferson

You may want to try to hook

You may want to try to hook up with Dennis Rodman if he gets a divorce from himself.

Man, get a grip.  Errr,

Man, get a grip.  Errr, scratch that.  Uh, well, never mind...

Give it up!

I don't really care if Ellen gets "married" or not. I'm more concerned with young men and women putting their lives on the line for her "right" to do it.  This is apparently all Ellen and Portia think about -- it's the overriding issue in their lives? Pitiful!

With Memorial Day coming up, I can only assume that Ellen and others like her will get down on her/his knees in thanks for their freedoms.  They came at a cost and you didn't pay a dime.

 

"it sounds to me like saying

"it sounds to me like saying you can sit there but just can't sit there. It doesn't feel feel inclusive. It feels isolated"

I'm very sorry that gays feel that way, but honestly, isn't it accurate? Are they not isolated by nature? They cannot bear children without the help of a disinterested third party.

This argument that just because it "feels right" and that it is love just carries no weight. So what if it feels right? If it feels right for NAMBLA to have relations with children under the age of consent, does that serve as an end-all justification for their position?

By all means, enjoy your relationship together, but do not bring children into it and it ain't marriage.

Poor ellen

Another show of ellen's becoming the gay show. What makes these people think we want to hear about their gross lifestyle?
When she said "celebrate our love" I about gagged!
Do they really need our approval so much.
Do whatever you want, ellen...just leave me out of it!
Frankly...I'm with McCain on this one!

I get really irritated with

I get really irritated with all this moralizing, which turns me off on the Republican party.

I don't understand why people get so offended and threatened by gay people. Two guys getting married is pretty goofy, especially if one wears a dress, but it doesn't hurt me at all. Why should it be my business what they want to do?

Freedom of religion is enshrined in our Constitution. That is why it's okay that a church refuse to marry two guys, especially if one of them wears a dress. And if gays get upset about that, they can go jump in a lake.

But in a secular, public courthouse? Who cares? If it's going to make you cry, go outside and walk around the block. There are elements in our country that are actually dangerous, and have ill intentions for us. Gay people are, at the very worse, just irritating.

If you haven't noticed, most

If you haven't noticed, most of this is because they are making it all of our business.
And people with other "lifestyles" will begin demanding the same.
I too could care less..but I also don't care to hear about anyones sexual proclivities...gay or straight...or whatever!

"Two guys getting married

"Two guys getting married is pretty goofy, especially if one wears a dress, but it doesn't hurt me at all."

Not necessarily true.  These individuals are engaging in behavior that tends to spread infectious disease.  To the extent they irresponsibly and recklessly spread harmful or even fatal diseases to other members of society, they hurt you.  This is the rationale by which Government prohibits or licenses prostitution.  The public in the form of the Government has the right to prohibit private activities that inflict harm upon others.  The Liberals will all defend the Government's right to prohibt pollution, one citizen dumping his or her waste into the air or water used by another person.  This is no different than prohibiting one individual from giving another gonorrhea.

Straight people having sex

Straight people having sex spreads disease, too.

You say that the government should be in the business of "prohibiting" sexual behavior. I'm not sure about that. I don't want big brother in my bedroom or in anyone else's bedroom.

And I think liberals use the excuse of "pollution" to shut down commerce and break the back of capitalism. Maybe conservatives use the excuse of sexual diseases to insert themselves into an individual's moral self-determination. The similarity of both instances is power at the expense of liberty.

Your argument is

Your argument is fallacious, ignoring the simple facts. 

Most straight people don't have 20 sexual partners in the same month.  I am intentionally omitting the NBA players here.  Many Gay men do.   Prostitutes do.  Laws restricting these promiscuous activities can be justified as measures designed to prevent propagation of infectious disease.  Consider the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, where sexual promiscuity has spread AIDS to such an extent the fabric of those societies is collapsing, proof that the state does have an overriding concern in preventing epidemic.

Pollution laws deal with private property rights.  If somebody backed up a dump truck and left a pile of waste in your back yard, you would be justifiably incensed at the vandalism of your property.  Private property laws are intended to protect you from this.  If a neighbor three hundred yards away buries thirty leaky barrels of hazardous chemicals on his property, which leak into the ground water, subsequently spread to YOUR property, and cause your groudwater to be contaminated by hazardous chemicals, would you not think your neighbor had vandalized your property? 

Not to mention that there is

Not to mention that there is a physiological difference between the vagina and the anus.  The former is designed for intercourse, the other is for evacuation of the bowels.  I may be wrong (please correct me if I am), but I recall learning somewhere that all STDs were originally the result of irregular (i.e., non human, non-heterosexual) sexual contact.

And the pro-gay movement

And the pro-gay movement doesn't moralize?  Words like "should" and "ought" and "rights" come in to play in their vocabulary all the time.  Those are morally driven and morally based words.  The difference between the pro-gay movement & religious people is that religious people at least have a basis for their delineation between right & wrong.  The pro-gay movement's theme is "tolerance", but it is not tolerance of everyone.  They are just as intolerant as any religious person...but at least the religious person is up front about it and doesn't hide behind words like "tolerance".

Darth Dutch

What rights that I have does

What rights that I have does a gay man not have? None that I can think of. He has the same rights as me. That seems fair and I totally support our shared equal rights. But what most gay men want is an extra right…the right to marry another man. That would mean that a gay man would have more rights than me…wouldn’t that be discrimination?

I don't think it's an

I don't think it's an "extra" right.

You believing that a man shouldn't be marrying another man is your own personal belief. And that is fine.

But why do you need to impose it on another? Jesus said "judge not, lest ye be judged". Only God should judge.

You may not agree with other peoples' personal and moral choices, but the good news is, you are not responsible for their souls.

Can I marry my sister?

Or my mother? We're really close...

Or two women? We all get along VERY well.

Why not? Although not nearly as likely, it's certainly going to be brought up damn near immediately after same-sex marriage is legalized, and there will be no defensible argument against such things at that point.

Do you not see ANY value to the ubiquitous "social fabric"?

no problem's with gay

no problem's with gay marriage is this guy's belief, dude - but why does he want to impose it on us:)?

»→ Remember FURY?

When I was a kid, I used to watch FURY - The story of a horse, and the boy who loved him.

After all these years I understand why Joey's best friend was nicknamed "Packy"

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

only God should

only God should judge?

read it again - that's not what it says

we can't judge souls, but we can judge actions

my concern is public health - which immoral actions degrade - morals protect our health

morally prohibited actions include murder, theft, assault, rape, homosexuality, fornication and many others

we can legalize them - but it will cause greater social disease

that is our choice

By this statement "You may

By this statement "You may not agree with other peoples' personal and moral choices, but the good news is, you are not responsible for their souls" you spread your ignorance of God.  God des not hold us resposible for anothers choices in life, He does however hold us resposible for anothers being saved or his eventual place his soul will end up.

God questions Cain about Abel and Cain says "Am I my brothers keeper" and Gods says yes.  God does want us to make every effort to educate the unsaved and to go to all ends of the earth spreading the good news.  In fact He commanded us to do so.

So yes He wants us to "save" one anothers souls.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Jesus said "judge not, lest

Jesus said "judge not, lest ye be judged". Only God should judge.

Keep reading the verse.  He then says "for the manner in which you judge others will be used against you" (paraphrased).  He doesn't say you can't judge, but just be aware that whatever standard you use against others will be used against you. 

But why do you need to impose it on another?

Again, the pro-gay movement does this too.  They impose their morality on the vast majority of the public by demanding acceptance.  It cuts both ways. 

they literally impose it

they literally impose it with Judicial fiat

at least we "impose" marriage laws democratically - the way it always should be

One of the million things

One of the million things that irritate me about liberals is their ability to be tragically wrong even when they are right. Instead of insisting on all Americans being equally protected under the law (no matter what political stripe), they push the establishment of "special" groups that should be entitled to "special" rights and protections.

I'm confused on your position...

In your previous post you said that it's not an "extra" right.

Now you refer to "special groups" and "special rights" as being wrong.

Please clarify for me?

where does it stop?

I'm no philosopher but I think this is the result of moral relativism.  You are more or less saying if it doesn't hurt you, then who gives a rip what someone else does.  You see, the bar just keeps getting lower and lower as time goes by.  I remember an interview with Ted Bundy before he was executed.  He said the hard core porn that you could only get in the porn shops was 20 years later on tv.  As society "progresses" morals decay.  My firm belief is that the gay lifestyle is wrong and a sin.  So a lifestyle that is abhorrent in the eyes of God shouldn't be practiced just like any other sinful lifestyle.  If we say this is okay, then how can we tell the person who craves other sinful behavior that it's wrong?  I don't think we want to go down this road. 

Moral movements are

Moral movements are self-feeding and can very easily get out of control. I firmly believe that the whole Global Warming fiasco is simply a moral crusade, because their high priest even said so.

Morals are subjective. Our founders were certainly good Christian men, but they established our system under the objective notion of life, liberty, and property. Their motiviation was influence just as much (if not more) from the Enlightenment as the Bible.

morals protect public

morals protect public health as I stated above...

we live within a universe of finite rules - gravity for instance

jumping off of very high ledge on this planet will likely kill you

so the "moral" of the story - for your health - don't jump off a high ledge

but I could, however - lobby you, influence you, train you, teach you, inspire you - to jump - it's called brainwashing

so basically you have no problem with people jumping into gay sex

i do

Their motiviation was

Their motiviation was influence just as much (if not more) from the Enlightenment as the Bible.

Nope, read their original writings.  Check out www.wallbuilders.com

Darth Dutch

Exactly right.

Where do liberals want to hold the line? Do they really believe that society will "settle" at some point if we just grant these few more concessions? It will continue to go further down to no morals and no standards as time goes on. History has proven that. Just hold the frackin' line somewhere.

Although I do believe that the argument against same sex marriage can be made without invoking religion, which just negates the objections against it, as far as the law is concerned:

Humans have evolved over the thousands of years and many, many cultures to a point where societies have settled on two parents being the successful model for raising young. That's the point of marriage. To bind two people together for the proper rearing of young. Without some sort of marriage, which has always involved a religious component of some flavor as a basis, evolved into a societal, governmental endorsement (the legal aspect), it becomes too easy to get annoyed at your spouse and split.

And yes, as a disclaimer...two, loving gay parents are better than no parents for children without, but not as good as the ideal loving, man/woman combination.

But Don't Hold Them to the ame Standards!

Just as Women say they want to be treated equally, but then demand concessions when positions require greater strenght or endurance than the average woman possesses. Then equality isn't enough! They demand special treatment.

We are NOT all alike.

Suck it up Ellen.

Yes, I believe TIME

Yes, I believe TIME reported on this back in the '90s by declaring that Boys and Girls were GENETICALLY different. ZOUNDS!

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

Will McCain?

Now for the best question. Will McCain walk her down the aisle?

Would be the best Photo Op in decades to prove he is not Bush's third term. As he is against even the contracts or civil unions


Only the human ego can think It can control something as big as the enviroment. It was changing before we came and will change after we are all gone.

I'm a gay republican, I

I'm a gay republican, I didn't choose to be gay and believe me, i tried to change it but i cant. I'm not a religious person so i can't just use a faith to cover it up. It's something i've had to live with and deal with. Nobody wants to be gay, nobody.

The problem with gay marriage is that the arguments against it are all religious, there is a separation of church and state but we still are a very christian influenced country. It is odd and difficult i admit but unfortunately many stereotypes are thrown in your faces. Most of the gay culture angers me because they are not promoting a more normal, healthy image. Instead they go to extremes and thats what you see and form the opinion off of.

Many gay people are just normal hardworking americans, who don't have an agenda and just try to live thier lives. These people don't march in parades or do obscene things. I want to have kids, thats important to me and i know having 2 fathers would be a challenge but i would do anything in my power to provide the best life for my children. To have a more stable family enviroment you need to have marriage.

How dare you be the voice

How dare you be the voice of reason! /s

»→ Exactly, bal

I have a real problem with Ellen De Generess shoving her sexuality in my face.

On the other hand, Portia de Rossi . . . well, that one's a bit more difficult to explain.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

are you pro-choice:)?

gay sex is a public health issue - not just religous

the butterfly effect means what one person does affects us all

you feel gay feelings - you can't help that

but you can help how you CHOOSE to act on those feelings

you don't have to give in

feelings I have every day:

1. nice car! i want to car jack it and take it for myself

my moral choice: don't do it, that's wrong

2. it's nice outside - i want to quit work and never come back!

my moral choice - don't do it - have a family to feed

3. girl in t-shirt on the screen - sexy - i wish to fantasize about having sex with he on that beach, hell - I want to jump in a plane and fly all over the world until i find her, and the actually have sex with her on that beach

my moral choice - I'm a married fundie, get over to bible.com and do some reading

and on and on and on it goes all day long every day

it's just not fair - I was born with those feelings

can we maybe legalize them instead? pretty please?

»→ Sure, Truthmonger

The government can not so subtly inform young girls that illegitimacy is a right, and that men are not necessary.

Brilliant!

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

My arguments against Gay Marriage are not religious

I have zero problems, none what so ever with people being gay and being in gay relationships.

I do have a problem with Gay people thinking that they can be just as good of parents as a heterosexual couple. If you take four people three of one sex and one of another and say they are the same in every single way in terms of abusive or caring tendencies, then the best couple to raise the child is the one that has both sexes represented.

If Gay couples want to adopt children or even have their own children it will never be outlawed just like being a single parent will never be outlawed. Single parents and Gay parents should not be ostracized or ridiculed. That doesn't mean we can't strive for what's best as a society.

Civil Unions can accomplish everything that Gay people want, except to give the illusion that their family structure is equally good for raising children as a heterosexual one. It's not. No amount of people saying it is will make it so and I would think that even most Gay people appreciate or wish they had both a mother and a father

Interesting point.

I wonder how tfairc would feel about civil unions that are everything heterosexual marriage is legally/inheritance-wise/tax-wise/divorce-wise/etc. and exactly the same except that they're not called the m-word?? (Not sure about the parenting thing -- plenty of heterosexuals are lousy parents, but it's certainly good for kids to be raised around adults of both sexes.)
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

»→ sarc

We studied such unions in college.  I think they called them simple partnerships.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Well, this kind of partnership wouldn't be simple...

If God forbid your wife gets run over by a bus tomorrow, you're automatically the guy who gets to visit her in the hospital, decide on treatments with the docs, make funeral plans if needed, oversee estate matters if she's intestate, and all sorts of other things (including some not-so-good ones, like pay a marriage penalty in your taxes!!) all because you're married to your partner.

If a mere business partner gets run over by a bus, it's not the same situation at all, especially if the business partner's family objects to the partnership, as is often the case because this is such an emotional issue. And notice: even though I don't use the word "marriage" for them, the termination of these hypothetical contracts would have to be governed by divorce law precedents, which would make divorce lawyers richer. Something for everyone to hate...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

»→ sarc

None of this is possible via Power of Attorney?

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

I think it's all possible, legally, right now.

That's part of what I'm driving at. Since "marriage" has an obvious state/tax/civil/inheritance/etc. meaning, the gay community has 2 choices. The tempting one for the more confrontational ones (I have no dog in this fight, but if I were homosexual, I'll admit that might describe me -- I don't know!!) is the political route. Redefine marriage! In their face!!!

The less overtly political route (which might be wiser long term -- who wants a marriage penalty in their taxes???) is to try to draw up a massive contract describing all this "marriage stuff" (the bus killing your partner is but one example, after all) which is called something besides the m-word.

Knowing lawyers, such a nonmarriage contract is likely to approach or exceed the length -- if not the complexity -- of the King James Bible, IMO. And it's likely to read like Latin. Chances are, various attempts at this contract have already been made, as gay lawyers abound, but so far I've heard of none that have totally worked like marriage works for heterosexuals. I think, for that to be possible, the political movement would have to get behind one 50 state version of the contract. It's far easier to go on the attack, though.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

There is such a thing as a

There is such a thing as a living trust. Were gays so determined that their "partner" recive their stuff on their death, a living trust is the way to go. Even one of their kids would have a hard time fighting that.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

a living trust

Would be only a small part of the massive legal contractual entity I'm describing (see hospital treatment/visitation example above -- it's not just about death). I'm describing a contract with all of the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual marriage, minus only the word "marriage." The gay Republican guy would be ok with such a contract. The very-annoying gay law professors he'll probably need to actually make it work will probably hate the idea.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Ellen hits it on the

Ellen hits it on the head...

It's about gays going "mainstream"

making it "normal" "acceptable" "OK"

they don't want to be "deviants"

it's a natural human tendancy...

and they won't feel this way until the Churches as well as most non-religious opponents fully embrace the gay lifestyle

TM -- could you refrain

TM -- could you refrain from using the word "head" whilst talking about Ellen.

thanks. 

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

»→ Thanks, Jack

Sometimes Truthmonger really muffs it.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

ho ho. you nailed it. Le

ho ho. you nailed it.

Le nail, sur le tete.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

Obviously, the flood of

Obviously, the flood of criticism isn't going to be stopped by a finger in the dike.

Jer

»→ Ellen

Ellen does look like a Dutch Boy

Tongue in cheek comment.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Enough, Cool...I haven't

Enough, Cool...I haven't had lunch, yet.  I was planning on eating out.

Jer

Don't let Ellen hear that. I

Don't let Ellen hear that. I think she prefers "dining in". :>0

»→ Jer

I can be there licketysplit.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Don't forge the "carpet

Don't forge the "carpet cleaner".

If you guys keep this up I'll have to change the subject

to Your Wee Willie Winkies and other bed time stories.

Enough already 

Yes ma'am. We bad.

Yes ma'am.  We bad.

Jer

We're sorry. (in best

We're sorry. (in best Costello voice) I've been a baaadddd boooyyy.

yeh personally i would be

yeh personally i would be ok with that

Ok, cool.

IMO folks who want "the nonmarriage contract" to happen (minus the tax penalty, I'd hope!) should contact as many gay law school professors as possible. Most of these will be Democrats. Almost all will be very intelligent, but a substantial percentage will also be very annoying people. You still need them, and their colleagues in all 50 states. It won't be easy (especially the eventual divorce lawyer part!!) but I think it's the best route politically, because it proves that marriage is just a word, because it has been corrupted by the state to mean something that goes far beyond religion.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

I agree sarc except lousy parents are just as likely either way

I can't imagine anyone (even Gay people I know) wishing that they had been raised by two people of the same sex.

As I said, it's going to happen, just like single parents will always be there and calling single parents "married" won't change their child's longing for a mother or father (which ever they are missing). Many single mothers raise their children with another family member and that still doesn't discount the importance of having a father.

I want to make sure I'm clear that I'm not saying that Gay people can't be good parents. They can. I'm only saying that with all other things equal, they are not as good for a child as a heterosexual one.

Hi tfairc,Thanks for

Hi tfairc,

Thanks for your post.  At the risk of being deemed a bigot, intolerant, or evil, I did want to respond to your sentence about all of the arguments against gay marriage being religious. 

I think there are a number of arguments one can make against gay marriage that aren't religous at all.  For hundreds and thousands of years the vast majority of societies have deemed that a one woman one man marriage is the best and most stable thing for the society.  It is best for raising children, creating and keeping stability in the society, averting crime, etc.  Now, yes, there are a TON of traditional marriages that are not healthy, there are a TON of marriages that end in divorce and a "straight" relationship can be extremely dysfunctional as well.  But as an ideal, and as the norm, monogamous heterosexual marriages are the foundation of society and family units work best when there is a mother & a father.  So if this has worked for thousands of years across a diverse number of cultures, why should we change that?

So there you go. :)  Thanks for letting me respond and thanks again for posting what, to many, is an unpopular opinion on the board.

Darth Dutch

It's a modern society

Many traditions change, its the evolution of a society, many, many things done in the past wouldn't be acceptable today. So you can't use that argument, you could use that for women's right to vote for example. But the thing is, its just adding to it. Straight marriages will stay the same. I don't see how it would change it for the worse. Look at countries and states that do have it.

and yes, the ideal would be a mother and father but i don't have that option. If my partner and i can provide a loving home and stable life, is that really wrong? 

I don't see how it would affect your daily life, to the extent that it would mine.

 

No it's not wrong tfairc

and it can be handled with a civil union.

I agree. I, too, cannot wait

I agree. I, too, cannot wait for the day our society evolves enough so I can marry my car.

"And DOWN the slope they

"And DOWN the slope they go!"

I just KNEW you had a

I just KNEW you had a tailpipe or two in your past, Bal!

LOL that makes no sense.

LOL that makes no sense. Your just going to insane extremes. I could do the same with you.

If I may

Indulging a sexual deviancy is a tremendous hurdle to providing a loving, stable home for a child.  To the contrary, it develops an environment where a child will at least accommodate such deviancies (whatever they might be), and at most indulge in deviancy as a personal choice.

Let me ask you a non-religious question: Given two societies, one with heterosexuality as the exclusive norm and one with homosexuality as the exclusive norm, which one will survive to the second generation?

--Mike

www.thebrattonreport.com

It is being logical and

It is being logical and drawing an argument to its logical conclusion.  The argument is that marriage is a societal construct designed for raising children and teh homosexual marriage and unions will destroy this.  In fact families will be destroyed also.  In the logical conclusion why cant we marry our kids or dog or an inanimate object?  We are talking degrees of deviation here and you started it with an aquiescence to homosexual marriage.

In teh Netherlands they have a government supported party in political positions of power that want pediphelia legalized.  Just like Obama wants change teh peds party wants change also.  Just like you want change or at least dont mind change.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

"I don't see how it would

"I don't see how it would affect your daily life, to the extent that it would mine"

But we don't live in a vacuum, so what I do does affect others.  A couple who is getting divorced could say it's none of my business that they are getting divorced, but the product of that divorce will affect me, either directly or (more likely) indirectly (e.g., a child's trouble in school, possible increase in crime, no guidance or discipline, lack of respect for authority, etc.).  So I don't think that argument is a valid one.

Also, it should be clearly pointed out that, while societies do change, the institution of marriage has existed in nearly every recorded society, whether ancient or modern, religious or atheistic, eastern or western, etc.  That has been one of the constant themes throughout the history of culture.  So while a lot of things have changed, that, for the most part, has not.

 

Civil Unions are equivalent to Gay Marriage

That is legalizing their sin as you say. John McCain better not sign some national civil union law.

http://www.ornery.org/

»→ Right Baker

Just like he won't sign an amnesty bill.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

What do they want?

They want to be "normal."

I'm so impressed John went

I'm so impressed John went on Ellen's show in the first place.

<sarc> 

 "Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Ellen, we are all alike

We all have problems of one kind or another.  Some of us address our particular problems; others seek out people with similar problems, form lobby groups, and insist that the culture at large not only allow them their problems, but view their problems as just another way to be normal.

You and your friend Portia suffer from a sexual deviancy, Ellen.  It's as simple as that.  You can either let it run your life, as you have, or address it and mature beyond it.

--Mike

www.thebrattonreport.com

It's all about the kids. If

It's all about the kids. If it was just about insurance claims, no one would object. As far as I am concerned if your religion likes Gay marriage, that is fine. If you think you now have an equal right to adopt an innocent baby, then that is not fine. If I was an orphan, I would want to have a right to have a chance to have a Mother and a Father. Case closed...it's not about you Ellen. 

a heartfelt thank you to tfairc

I wasn't sure where the best place to post this was because the thread is getting all over the place, but I wanted to welcome you and tell you that I admire your courage to come and post here on this issue.  Thank you for taking the time.

I hope you will feel welcome to post here on other issues as well. Most of us harbor no ill will to Gay people here and I hope that you understand that. The fact that you are Gay and a Republican probably has you taking grief from all sides.

I hope I haven't offended you and that you can somehow see that my opposition to Gay Marriage is nothing personal against you or your life style. I'm sorry if it feels that way.

A Minor Quibble With the Wording of This Article

Having not ready any of the comments, thusfar, it is my understanding that the 61% vote by the California citizens was not to ban homosexual marriage, but to legally codify the definition of marriage as one man/one woman.  In other words, the California citizens did not "outlaw" homosexual unions, they just didn't offer any legal recognition.

Thus the California Supreme Court did not overturn a ban, they just stripped the centuries-old heterosexual marriage institution of legal protections, i.e., it is no longer the special biocultural bond that it is meant to be between one man and one woman.

hey degenerate......there is also MY Way OF THINKING

I think I'm not Gay. and I don't know what way of thinking you are accusing Mr. McCcain . . .he can't think Gay either.
But if you want to get married, And......you cannot marry the same Sex....Uh, it has been that way for centuries...Millenia....must be a rule of Civilization.

Wow--

Wow-- after reading a few threads tonight, it's clear to me I have become an ousider. I see lovefests for McCain all over the place.

 

Bye, again......

misterbill, believe me, many of us here refuse to drink McCain's

Kool-Aid.

There is still Free, me, Clear, WTH and bt, and, of course you.

And I'll apologize in advance for anyone I left out.

Please stay, as this site is diminished considerably when you are not around.

D.

We are being smothered by government in this country. - Neal Boortz

Amen to that!  "Abstain

Amen to that! 

"Abstain from McCain"

I don't drink that

I don't drink that Kool-aid. I respect him and admire what he's done for this country, but he is not my choice for the next president.

Murrow turning over in his grave
Murrow turning over in his grave
Ed Murrow had a child and the damn thing went wild
- Lindsey Buckingham

Hey misterb...so what if we

Hey misterb...so what if we are outsiders...and by the way there are a lot of us who do not like McCain here, you just aren't here long enough to read all the posts...I do not care if I am in the minority, won't be the first time or the last I would imagine...neither should you.

I for one am tickled to see you back now and then, I wished it was more often, especially when I am posting about illegal immigration and the latest happenings and there is no one here to respond...it isn't like it used to be when you are gone.

Just my two cents friend.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Hey BT--

There are always a few good old friends here. My problem, quite like a few posts here today, is my age. I find my tolerance is wearing thin. I am getting angry quicker than I used to and I am doing a slow burn all the time. I am getting very forgetful, but by golly, there are a lot of libs who are counting on us all to be that way. So here goes, a couple of reasons why I get ticked :

Polar bears--what a bag of muffins (meadow that is).

Kennedy--perhaps the finest thing that could happen for the sovereignty of the USA.

McCain --perhaps the most treacherous bas***d that ever professed to be a Republican--worse than that, he will give America away. The immigration issue is explosive. Reading other sites and news journals, the police in some cities are not on board with other cities, they do not want to turn illegals in to the ICE. I am no Lou Dobbs or others, I do not want to be polite anymore--if people cannot see the extreme danger  of illegal immigration and how it is an absolutely integral part of the economy issue, I just throw up my hands and get disgusted. Oh, and guess how much illegal immigration impacts the health issues in America, and Social Security and on and on. And I find a lot of people here are for Mccain. Analyze his agenda for  Ameirca, compare to Teddy's. Mail it in.

Oh yes. I am a conspiro. The SPP "MYTHS" page will show what a crazy person I am. Surrre!

Enough---My heart is breaking when I find out how many Americans around me feel that open borders and free trade is good for America. I have even had  a couple of associates say we need to be more like the EU.  I get discouraged. So, I do not participate nearly as much as I used to. When I read silliness exposed by NB, (like the recent polar bear crap), I feel that sanity is raising its head again, so I jump in for a while. Perhaps the folks here on NB do not encounter as much as I do in favor of amnesty, NAU, etc. I just feel lately like America is definitely losing, even with all the good state legislation that has been passed recently.

Yeah but misterb...it has

Yeah but misterb...it has always taken people like us to fight back...look at Sessions for just one example....if we give up and remain silent then we do lose.

Many people do not know what all is going on, or about some of the voting records or what all people like McCain say in the Senate or how he votes or on other television shows or town hall meetings...sometimes I feel like I am beating my head on the wall too...I have to leave for a few days too because of aggravation and frustration....but I will never give up.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

BT --have you read Joe Farah's take on McCain

BT --have you read Joe Farah's take on McCain and the other slug Obama???

misterb...No...do you have

misterb...No...do you have a link?

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

some recent news

NYTIMES:

"McCain Says Immigration Reform Should Be Top Priority "

Another McCain:

"UNION CITY, Calif. -- Surrounded by high-tech entrepreneurs, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said this morning he would expand visas for immigrants at the same time he would propose legislation cracking down on illegal immigration."

Other irritants by the MSM:

 "Out of the shadows"

 "Climate of fear"

Well, for now, I want to be in the shadows. (I am tired and am going to bed.)

A question was raised today in defense of Feinstein. Someione suggested brain cancer may be contagious.

Ooooooh what an awful man I am.


 

misterb... You are a

misterb...

You are a danged fine man, thank you for your service to this country to this day.

I am closing out too...take care friend...hope to catch you back here more often.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Damnit misterbill, this ain't happenin.' No way, no how, nuh-uh!

There are four people here who were the reason I joined way back well, you know.

You were one of those people. What is more is that you, along with a handful of others, came to my defense when most others wanted my politically incorrect ass laid out on a silver platter, and damn near got it, too.

I don't mean to get really personal here, but you and my dad, Korean War veterans both, shared many sort-of common experiences over the years.

As you well know, my 80 yo dad cannot even tie his own shoes at this point, as his Alzheimer's has become rather seriously advanced recently.

His brother, my Uncle, and the person I am named after, and who flew Skyraiders off carriers in the waters near Korea during that hideous war, has been diagnosed with cancer as of last week. His prognosis is rather dire.

You are fast becoming my last real connection to that era. What is more, I believe your life experiences are more than valuable here at NB. The younger crowd, and that includes me, are utterly clueless at times.

Please don't leave NB.

We are being smothered by government in this country. - Neal Boortz

Dear, good friends---

Dear, good friends---I may have overstated my feelings because I am so tired lately. When I said adios--I meant for the evening and for the subject. I participate at three sites, NB, Alipac and Firesociety. I asked BT if she had seen Joe Farah's column. It is radical, in a sense, so I must be too. Why?? Because I agree with it completely.

I woke at 4AM and I cannot get back to sleep, so I opened NB and found your great comments. I truly appreciate them. When I was a young man in MA in the 60s, I was in the middle of America's love fest with John F. Kennedy. A good number of my friends were recipients of the Kennedy machine's control. Government jobs and the like. That in itself was not a problem, the blind loyalty to the machine and  the mindless adulation were a problem (to me). I could go on and on about it, but what it boils down to me is---doesn't anyone look behind the curtain??? Why instant forgiveness for Teddy??? What qualified Bobby to be the Attorney General of the USA?? Is this Saudi Arabia where we appoint family to all key government positions??? That is when I switched political parties and became a Republican. I also remember an article in anewspaper friendly to Kennedy where it said that his first hundred days resulted in less accomplished than any other President save Millard Fillmore. And the adulation went on. Since that time, we, the voters, the Republican voters have been told how to vote (so too , have the Democrat voters). The basic reason is for one's party to hold the power to ensure we have "better" government. Bush's administration has done some things better and some things worse. We have been told, (both parties), that to vote for a third party candidate is a "wasted" vote, a vote "thrown away".

Forgive me, but this smacks of the same logic as standing behind the Kennedy machine. I believe every person should vote for the candidate that they believe to be the best American, the person who will do the most good for America at large. We don't. We vote, very often for the person who will do us,. individually, the most good. Farmers vote for officials who will continue the farm subsidy program. Unions vote for the person who will try to pass legislation most favorable to unions.

Yes, yes, I know, what is so surprising about that??? Nothing, but how can anyone ask how we got to where we are today with our elected officials?? We are to blame. I have crossed over many times and voted for candidates in the other party because I thought they were better for the community, the country. I have been wrong a few times. But I exercised what I believe to be, my duty to vote for the person who would be better for America, not just me.

So, call me naive, call me a fool, perhaps I am. I am not wealthy. I never wanted to be the highest level, most powerful person at any level of my life. I volunatrily took a pay cut twice in my career, to work at jobs I liked rather than jobs that paid the most. Am I an anchronism??? I think not. You see one of the blessings of living in and being an American is freedom (as distinguishable from liberty).

Freedom to do or be what I want. Freedom from the expectations of others that say that one should be a doctor, lawyer, accountant, when one would rather work with one's hands, or fix electronics or drive a bus or do whatever keeps them happy while providing them with sustenance. Illegal immigration has removed a lot of these freedoms from Americans today.

Back to the main theme. Now I sit here and I read denials of the efforts of a group called the SPP. I see city, county, state and the federal governments depriving Americans of their rights in favor of minority groups, many of whom are here illegally. I see the destruction of the fabric of family, abortion (murder to me) at will, a loss of the sense of shame. Children bearing children, a society that has stolen childhood from our children. I ask any of you to stop for a moment and think back to the joys of youth. It was a world more innocent, a world where we were allowed to believe in Santa Claus for a few more years than kids today. 

I have gone on for a while here. You can some of the things I see through the eyes(words) of an older person. I am sad to say that many older people I know are disconnected.They do not have a clue as to what is happening in and to their country. They are sheeple, they follow the party line. They trust politicians at a time in our history when they are least deserving of trust.

I am tired of being told I am "wasting" my vote if I do not vote for McCain, I am tired of being told Obama will win if I vote for a third party. I guess I have, among the sites I visit, seen enough comments of this type to just wear me down. I will vote for the person who is a strong supporter of my Constitution. I will vote for the person who appers to be the best American. I may be worng, I have been before,but by God, I am being an American.

I post here the link  to Joe Farah's column:

I do not ask you to agree, I only ask you to read it.

In essence, I believe that a third party candidate may have a significant effect in restoring us to the American basics. Good heavens, that's why they exist, because of the collapse of our values over the years. And, although I am not a dedicated Ron Paul supporter, I do believe his value system more closely matches mine and my ego says that I am a true American. I believe Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin to be far better Americans than Joghn McCain or the two socialists still competing for the Democratic slot.

Over the next few months, the information I learn will help me make my final decision as to my choice for President. Whatever happens, my vote will not have been "wasted", in my opinion.

I have missed you too Mr. Bill

I loved your poems and the way you joke about your age and gush about your wife. I think you are 100% adorable.

You are not in the minority here by any means. Almost every conservative here hates McCain, and now even the liberals who defended him before do too (how surprising).

I think the Farah article you posted to makes great points and I can understand how anyone can agree with that thinking. If Hillary were to have won, I'd probably be on board with it. Hillary would not enjoy the same completely biased insulated coverage as Obama. They would never be as hard on Hillary as they are on Bush but Obama will be treated like their God. He is their God. We are going to have 8 years of Obama and I don't think my vote for McCain will make a difference, but I'm doing it anyway. I think an Obama Presidency will permanently harm America even more than a McCain one.

The Farah article's main point is that the Dems will screw up America, people will be mad and know who to blame and then elect Republicans. I don't think it's that simple. I wish it were.

The judges that Obama supports will most likely serve for 20 years or more and will forbid any restrictions on abortion, will probably overturn Child Pornography laws, will always side with the government over the people like in Kelo vs New London and Gun rights, and will allow Free speech to be for liberals only.

If he lets Al Qaeda take over Iraq then it will never be a democracy again.

Obama's social programs will never be cut by any Republican, only expanded just like social security and Medicare.

I can't stand McCain. I still hope that he drops out for some reason. We are in a lose lose situation and I can't blame anyone who doesn't vote for him. I won't give him any time or financial support. Obama is going to win anyway and the bigger his landslide the more power he will have. My vote for McCain will be a protest vote against Obama. McCain doesn't stand a chance of winning but even if he did, he wouldn't win my state (IL).

No matter what, we all need to figure out a way to come together to elect Republicans in the house and Senate. We all need to donate more time and money to that. We can't just worry about Republicans in our own districts, we have to support them everywhere.

Sorry, misterbill. Guess I jumped to conclusions above.

I, too, share your frustrations.

Despite certain reservations I have about the man, I will be pulling the lever for Bob Barr in November, as he is the only presidential candidate that truly supports the idea of freedom of the individual.

Without that, this country is history.

We are being smothered by government in this country. - Neal Boortz

Stare Decisis And Liberals = ?

Stare decisis and abortion = good

Stare decisis and marriage = bad

Huh?

RRAM Tough!