In NH And Iowa, Gay Marriage Has Political Angle

Iowa and New Hampshire traditionally offer presidential candidates vastly different political landscapes when they seek their party nominations.

[JFTR]

Duh..It's always been used as a political tool.

[giftagab]

Yeah. The Suckydicky Party. I can kinda see New Hampshire going for pervert marriage. It's sort of a bedroom community for liberal upper class East Coaster pukes.

But Iowa? Here's one for you. Go to the Iowa rooms on topix. NOT ONE of them discuss it. I brought it up and no-one answered.

Something really really whacko going on here.

[OutVoice]

The title is factual, not sure about the rest of the story. Obvioulsy tilts a particular way, surprised it was not on NBC.

[Captain Cucumber]

Bitter much?

It won't be long until we have the entire country, and you guys will be shoved in the closet with the racists and sexists. You've already got a foot in the door.

[Captain Cucumber]

JFTR wrote:

Duh..It's always been used as a political tool.

That's not what the article was about. It was talking about how it is perceived different in the different states so politicians are going to have to play a careful game in the next election.

[JFTR]

Captain Cucumber wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not what the article was about. It was talking about how it is perceived different in the different states so politicians are going to have to play a careful game in the next election.

That's exactly what a political tool is and does.

[JFTR]

IMO shouldn't be a politcal issue.

[Jackie - A very upset fan]

Hopefully ILLINOIS is next :)

[Prophet Omega]

Jackie - A very upset fan wrote:

Hopefully ILLINOIS is next :)

People that are spiritually suicidal have no problem with policies and agendas that result in and guarantee their nations self-destruction.

[Captain Cucumber]

I find inequality to be spiritually suicidal, personally.

We're all sinners, if you're a Christian. Homosexuals are no more or less sinners than anyone else.

But, thankfully we have Freedom of Religion and the Separation of Church and State, so we don't really need to think about it when we're talking about legal contracts.

[Pat]

The bible party is a bunch of thumb sucking non-thinking idiots. What the hell are they so afraid of? Why do these idiots have to be so insecure and intolerant? If you don't like gay marriage then don't enter into one. If you think religion is a bunch of ignorant superstitions then just stay away from the churches. The religious should not be allowed to deny gay marriage any more than atheists should be allowed to ban religon.

[Captain Cucumber]

JFTR wrote:

<quoted text>
That's exactly what a political tool is and does.

No, the article said that it's a non-issue in New Hampshire. Iowa republicans are probably going to be voting social issues this next time around, so it'll be something that the Republicans will be talking about--but that's discussion within the party.
The emphasis wasn't on it being used as a tool though, but on the differences in perception.

Gay marriage should not be something that people are basing their final votes on. It's too trivial of an issue at a time of war and recession. Conservatives need to get their priorities straight...start worrying about conservative economic issues, for example. They're the party of personal liberties anyways; they should adhere to their own ideology.

[Prophet Omega]

Captain Cucumber wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not what the article was about. It was talking about how it is perceived different in the different states so politicians are going to have to play a careful game in the next election.

Unelected Judges and spineless politicians will not have the last word, it will be the voters. Only the politicans who stand for principles of Marriage between one man and a woman will be elected.

[Prophet Omega]

Captain Cucumber wrote:

I find inequality to be spiritually suicidal, personally.
We're all sinners, if you're a Christian. Homosexuals are no more or less sinners than anyone else.
But, thankfully we have Freedom of Religion and the Separation of Church and State, so we don't really need to think about it when we're talking about legal contracts.

Thankfully there are some of us who will stand up to defend the sanctity of Marriage between a Man and Woman so that the nation does not collapse entirely. If you reduce marriage to just a legal contract or a piece of paper it is completely meaningless. Just look at europe and russia. Russia has to not pay people to have children because the minds of the public have been corrupted by mass perversion. And yes I AM going to say it. GOD ... thats right ... God is not mocked what ever a person sows in their life whether good or bad they will also reap. I realize that many these days will have to learn the hard way. Divorcing the knowledge of your accountibility to God is never wise now nor later near hour of your death.

[JFTR]

Captain Cucumber wrote:

<quoted text>
No, the article said that it's a non-issue in New Hampshire. Iowa republicans are probably going to be voting social issues this next time around, so it'll be something that the Republicans will be talking about--but that's discussion within the party.
The emphasis wasn't on it being used as a tool though, but on the differences in perception.
Gay marriage should not be something that people are basing their final votes on. It's too trivial of an issue at a time of war and recession. Conservatives need to get their priorities straight...start worrying about conservative economic issues, for example. They're the party of personal liberties anyways; they should adhere to their own ideology.

It'a a politcal tool when a politcal party choose to address it with the idea using it to get more voters or to avoid lossing votes.

And who cars anyway? In my book it has no place coming into play with either political party and should not be addressed. Why should whoever people choose to love be an issue for the government or to be discussed within a politccal party?

I made a one-line comment and you find a way to turn it into a capital offensive. You don't even know my stance on the issue.

[Captain Cucumber]

That's clearly not true. 2 states in the northeast have done it through the legislative branch now.
Those are all elected officials who are representing their constituents.

[Sidney]

Living like there's no God to answer to is folly.

http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

[BR0DY]

Well, good luck, would be nice if the rest of the U.S. would allow love to survive.

Jackie - A very upset fan wrote:

Hopefully ILLINOIS is next :)

[Captain Cucumber]

JFTR wrote:

<quoted text>
It'a a politcal tool when a politcal party choose to address it with the idea using it to get more voters or to avoid lossing votes.
And who cars anyway? In my book it has no place coming into play with either political party and should not be addressed. Why should whoever people choose to love be an issue for the government or to be discussed within a politccal party?
I made a one-line comment and you find a way to turn it into a capital offensive. You don't even know my stance on the issue.

This site makes me combative. sorry.

[Captain Cucumber]

Prophet Omega wrote:

<quoted text>
Thankfully there are some of us who will stand up to defend the sanctity of Marriage between a Man and Woman so that the nation does not collapse entirely. If you reduce marriage to just a legal contract or a piece of paper it is completely meaningless. Just look at europe and russia. Russia has to not pay people to have children because the minds of the public have been corrupted by mass perversion. And yes I AM going to say it. GOD ... thats right ... God is not mocked what ever a person sows in their life whether good or bad they will also reap. I realize that many these days will have to learn the hard way. Divorcing the knowledge of your accountibility to God is never wise now nor later near hour of your death.

I think your personal religion, not Christianity itself, is hateful and confused.
Your religious OPINION does not supercede anyone else's.

Religious marriage is of each individual church's concerns. Civil marriage, as a legal contract, is of governmental concern and cannot/shouldn't be swayed by certain individuals' religious perspectives.

It's called Freedom of Religion. I'm not religious, why should I have to follow your hollow traditions?