Todd would cut in on them???

I have a few questions for Ellen:

1. Why haven't you denounced the violence of the Prop. 8 protesters?  Why haven't you called for them to be peaceful and stop harassing those who disagree with them ideologically?
2. Why haven't you denounced the Bash Back group that interrupted a church service in Michigan?  Don't Christians have the right to equality in the First Amendment?
3. What is more "equal" than allowing people a free vote in a free society?
4. Where, in the Constitution, does it say any group has the right to not be offended or have their points of views questioned?
5. Do churches, groups, and individuals who have a moral objection to homosexual behavior have the right to free expression of religion?  If not, why not?  And how is denying them that right Constitutional?

No one criminalized same-sex relationships with Prop. 8.  I'm pretty certain, contrary to the commercial, no Mormon missionaries showed up at DeGenere's house and ransacked the place (or any other gay couple's house).  From what I've heard on other blogs from gay men and women who live in CA, they already had civil unions and the same benefits as marriage.  So, clearly, there's another agenda at work here.  This is about forcing socially conservative churches and other groups to accept and condone homosexual behavior.  Tolerance is no longer enough.  YOU. MUST. APPROVE.

There is no logical argument that says if we alter the definition of marriage - which supercedes religion and has, for centuries, been one man/one woman across cultures, because it's the most beneficial structure for husbands, wives, and children and because it's the most stable way to build up a society - that we can then turn around and tell other fringe groups that we have to limit marriage to two consenting adults.

If it's "discriminatory" not to allow two men or two women to marry based on their sexual preference, and inspite of the fact they are less than 5% of the general population, how are we going to stop someone from fighting for his "right" to marry, say, an animal?  Or how are we going to tell someone he can't marry a 9-year-old child?  Or how are we going to tell polygamists that they can't have 2, 3, 4, 5 spouses?  How can we limit marriage to two consenting adults if it's discriminatory to define marriage on the basis of the most common sexual preference - inspite of the benefits of traditional marraige to society?

Short answer: You can't.  Somewhere, there's a judge who would surely find it's the "right" of someone to marry any one, or any thing, or as many people as they wish.  Anything else is "unConstitutional."

Feminists couldn't kill marriage.  Maybe other forms of political correctness can.

***UPDATE***

Letters containing white powder were sent to Mormon temples in CA, UT.  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451846,00.html

Tests determined the powder was non-toxic, but how long before someone is killed?  If they are killed, what will your reaction be, Ellen?  Will it be deserved, like Mary Stachowicz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Stachowicz)?

Let me just add one sidebar. I'm glad that California put this vote to the people. Until now, we've had to stand by and watch activist groups go judge-shopping, trying to weasel a "victory" by gaming the judicial system. Instead, the people of California trumped that tactic by taking it directly to the voters. Smart move.

I mean, most of the rest of the country looks at California and sees San Francisco's mayor just inventing things ad hoc, and we wonder what the hell is going on there. So let's give credit where credit is due. The people of California decided to squarely address this nonsense. If two years from now, California presents another pro-gay Proposition, and the voters allow it ... I won't like the result, but at least they did politics honestly. I can respect the process.

Good for California.

We here at Sore/Loserman want a do-over of the 2000 election!

This just reiterates how mentally screwed up Degeneres really is.

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

You MUST now refer to him as Comrade Glorious Supreme Leader Obama. The Truth Squad takes names and is saving them for January. We now have YOUR name. You must not disparage Comrade Glorious Supreme Leader Obama any more. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Can I come to the wedding? 

Semper Fi

The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the

The problem for this women was that she didn't have a picture of Obama in the room for Keithie to fantasize about while they went about their business.

"emphasis on the NO Religion in Government because some here are foolish enough to not only deem it justified, but fail to see this is *exactly* what caused us to create this nation and a nation who is governed by dogmatic principles of a single Religion is NOT what our forefathers intended." 

I was wondering if you could point me to books, or online articles of this analysis showing the founding fathers intent to prevent religious concepts from entering Government. That is assuming what you meant in the above quote, and you're not talking about establishing a "National" religion.

"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."

--The Dooper

I go from it from a scientific viewpoint. I am a Christian, but I understand that there are many denominations in Christianity and since not everyone is one, then I take the time to educate them and go from a point they understand. Plus, whenever it comes to any form of religion, the left always twists that into a nonvalid issue--since not everyone follows an organized religion. So, I'm going at them at their own game---namely bringing a gun into a knifefight.

Abortion: Human DNA defines you as a person. he human fetus has the DNA of both parents. So if human DNA defines you, then you are committing murder of another human being. Also, I have noticed a majority of women who have HAD an abortion, turn pro-life because they cannot get over the guilt of killing their child. The ones that usually turn out to be pro-choice never have had an abortion yet. 

Homosexuality: There is no gay "gene". I am willing to accept that there are some people that are truly gay, but in my experience they have chosen this lifestyle due to some neurotic issues and/or traumatic instances. Also, if you want to look at it on an evolutionary standpoint, it's a dead end if you consider that apparently we've been put on this world to procreate. I took a look at another observation: Gay people also seem to parody heterosexual relationships--meaning someone has to be the butch and someone has to be the femme. The thing what I see in a reality about a relationship between men and women to a successful marriage and family, is that men and women have to overcome their own issues and needs (there are biological differences between women and men in general both in thought and both physically) and work together in a partnership. That matures the relationship once they get married and takes it to a whole new level. When they have children, then they even go into a new level of maturity. Even with childless couples they have that commitment to each other regarding this. 

That's what feminism tried to destroy when they made men and women enemies and enabled women to be spoiled children. 

Gay Marriage: In most gay relationships I have observed, it's nothing more really than a heterosexual couple living together. There's no room for progression of the relationship to get to another level like a married couple. I'm not saying it isn't possible for gay people to find their soulmates, but I've seen that the gay community is far from nurturing of those types of relationships which enable: promiscuity, cheating, and other types of immature behavior. To me, they don't deserve the "marriage" label.

I am against gay marriage because to me marriage means one thing: a man and a woman not too closely related and of consenting age. Also, I view marraige as not a right, but as a societal agreement to unite families and legitamize children. Gay relationships are just different and thereby should be called a different name because it's not marriage to me. Simple element, one is hetero, the other is homo. If they want something else to call it their own, fine they should speak with society in general about this. However, as a part of society and of their current reaction to Prop 8, I don't care to give them anything anymore. I even feel like taking away domestic partnerships and civil unions because they've just used it as a stepping stone to get their way, regardless of what society thinks.They have never pursued another type of ceremony and institution yet scream at us for not giving them marriage. They have never given me a reason other than "to be happy". The Satanists were plenty happy when they made their own church, so why can't gay people?

On religion and politics: My personal stance is this. You cheapen God by politicking him. However, I don't believe that people should leave their morality and religion at the door. Sarah Palin is perfectly ok in expressing what she believes, for example. It's an inevitable part of you. However, if you elect an Evangelical President (for example) and expect him to use his Evangelical religion to force Creationism (NOT intelligent design) through the school cirriculum, then that would be wrong.

However, I'm not for the GOP to ditch Christianity either. We have and believe in the 4 freedoms: political, economic, individual, and religious freedom. That was our cornerstone of what America should be. That's what we should stand by because that applies to EVERY American and that doesn't compromise our beliefs. If the GOP has to "modernize"--do it that way.

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill

The governement should not be able to force a religious organization to violate it's beliefs.

You're absolutely right, but that's not what's happening here. Case(s) in point:

• Massachusetts - Catholic Charities shut down a successful adoption program after the state ruled they had to adopt to gay couples, in violation of their beliefs.
• New Jersey - a Methodist church lost its tax exempt status after it declined to allow a same sex commitment ceremony on some of its property.
• New Mexico - a Christian photographer was fined nearly $7,000 for declining to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony.

In Canada

• Rev. Stephen Boission was found guilty of hate crimes by a Human Rights Commisioned, fined, ordered to write a letter of apology, and forbidden from publicly expressing his faith...because he wrote a letter to an editor expressing his views on homosexuality.
• The same HRC officer recently ruled that Christians can never be threatened or offended (not even by lyrics in a song that say, "Kill the Christians"), which basically means Christians have no protections (so I guess Ashlee's getting her "no government in religion" wish, at least in Canada for now).

In CA and elsewhere, homosexual behavior is being taught to children as part of sex ed.  The words "mom" and "dad" and any traditional references to family are removed from textbooks in CA so as not to offend.  This is also why there's a big push in CA to prohibit homeschooling.

In Canada, it's a hate crime to withdraw your child from a lesson on homosexuality or other lessons parents deem morally objectionable.

Counselors have lost their jobs after referring same-sex couples or gay individuals to other counselors, either because they don't specialize in those relationships or have a moral objection to them.

The dating sight E-Harmony has come under scrutiny because it only accepts heterosexual people...because the founder studied what makes heterosexual marriages work, and applies his knowledge to his site.  He said he doesn't know enough about SSA to do the same.

And, until the left and the gay right's movement acknowledges the rights of religious persons, churches, groups, businesses, parents and individuals to freely express their religion, opinions, and votes - as I said above - we aren't going to sit idly by and allow our rights to be trampled in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity."

I've said here and elsewhere, if I didn't feel and know that my rights were in the sights of the left and the same-sex rights movement, I wouldn't have as big a problem with it.  I'd still respect the votes of the people and their right to define cultural norms, however.

...how similar her schtick is to David Letterman's? She's just a DL copycat. So, yes, she's too dumb to even be funny on her own...

One of the guys told Costas that he would have to fill in for Olbermann (as he was out or something). I believe the phrases used was "filling his shoes".  Costas, even the weenie leftie that he, looks utterly destroyed.

In the past few weeks, we have seen liberals (Colbert, Afleck, the Southern Dem that created Designing Women--don't remember her name off hand)  starting to turn on this dolt. What does that say of his successes?