[...]Republicans and Democrats Against Prop 8 in CA – Jack & Jill Politics[...]…

[...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]…

[...]in this page you can find some suggestions for sites , I think these are excellent to reading[...]…

As is also the position of Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid and even Hillary Clinton. All very important Dems.

As is also the position of Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid and even Hillary Clinton. All very important Dems.

As is also the position of Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid and even Hillary Clinton. All very important Dems.

Completely.

Or better yet – how the Massa could sleep with the slave woman, and her man couldn't do a damned thing about it – let alone put his foot up Massa's ass for messing with his woman.

That's what discrimination and legalizing it allows. It will not stop with Gay Marriage and honestly, I thought Cali has other issues to be concerned with, but then again, it didn't stop outsiders from coming into the state to get rid of Gray Davis and replace him with Ah-nold.

I'm a Christian, but when I see what other “christians” do in Jesus' name, I literally throw up in my mouth because those individuals believe Jesus is either too dumb or too lazy to sort things out Himself. My job is to practice unconditional love and acceptance of everyone I meet – to be admiring of strengths and tolerant of weakness, as well as being accepting of all. If that doesn't fit with my understanding of God, I guess He will show me the way to go.

But that doesn't mean I impose my beliefs on someone else, especially if they don't want them. If gays are discriminated against, what's to stop the government from trying to overturn Loving v. Virginia and outlawing interracial marriages? I'm against any form of discrimination because if it's allow against one group of people, it will not be long before there's an attempt to extend the discrimination to others.

White Rose Buddy, what about THAT you don't see?

They are the party of “Do as I SAY; not as I DO.” And take that to a whole 'nother level.

<<<eye roll>>>

Marriage is not about being fair. That is one of the non-logical arguments folks attempt to use to justify that which has no real justification. Heather has made a choice to enter into a relationship which grants her no legal rights. That is her perogative. I do not have to support her aberrant, deviant choices simply because you perceive not to as unfair.

What I think is unfair is to raise any child without a mother or father in their home. I am not concerned with the irrational narcissitic choices Heather makes as an adult. It is children who need to be protected from individuals who care more about their genital needs than doing what is in the best interest of children. How anyone could possibly think it was 'fair' to use your criteria to be raised fatherless or motherless to satisfy some adults sexual desires is beyond me, Now, that to me is cold blooded and cold hearted…no love there at all. When adult sexual needs supercedes children's RIGHTS it is inhumane.

Dick Cheney claimed that boy so that he would not have to endure the aberrant circumstances his daughter has placed that male child in. Dick understands the child needs to even if his own daughter is too caught up in having her sexual needs met that she didn't care enough to raise him with father.

Now in the event that Mary Cheney is no longer available to take care of her child that she decided to raise with Heather Poe—is it fair for Heather to be shut out of this child's life since she is the woman who was loved and committed to his mother? Or does love conquer all in this case?

Better yet, will it be different because it is Dick Cheney's daughter, since we are all aware that Republicans/conservatives reek of hypocrisy—-and the moral rules only apply to others?

The post was specific to behavior vs. race. Race is not a behavior. Behaviors which are deleterious to society or individuals are prohibited by law. It is solely the sexual behavior which is creating for the demand for some special rights based on the choice of how they engage sexually.
Nothing bizarre or troubling. The point was there are numerous sexual behaviors which society feels no need to condone and which society has specifically deemed illegal. Ergo, sexual behavioral choices is no basis to grant marriage 'rights' which is truly as you noted a rite vs. a right.

The purpose of marriage is to benefit society. Not the individual. The so called 'benefits' are incenitives to encourage individuals to marry as marriage is a legal state which carries with it specific responsibilities…the biggest being that children are not bastards and are the responsibility of the father into whose marriage they are born, thus relieving the state of financial responsibility and creating a stable community.

That is why marriage was a legal binding contract. It benefitted the state. Not the individual.

i do not see how marriage equity is a life-or-death issue, but i can't support a proposition that has discrimination as its basic premise.