JoeyRamone63

There's nothing "marxist " about Obama's policies. You are grossly exaggerating his positions; there is absolutely nothing in his policy proposals that would suggest "equality of income". The education assistance he proposes is very modest; a student can earn up to $5,000 towards college by participating in community service or in the armed forces--that's not exactly a handout. As for health care, Obama does not support a universal plan; if you already have insurance through your employer you will get to keep the same plan but at a discounted rate. Employers who do not offer insurance will get a discounted plan to offer their employees and those who cannot afford insurance will get the opportunity to join the same pool of insurance as members of Congress. I don't see how you can possibly call that "Marxist ". (Nov 3, 2008 | post #49)

And Chief Justice George said "Retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage," he wrote, "may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise -- now emphatically rejected by this state -- that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens' who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples." Yes, other judges dissented; that happens all the time in Supreme Court hearings. The fact of the matter is that banning same-sex marriage in favor of "civil unions" has the end result of treating one part of the population differently under the law than another part of the population. That, by definition, is unconstitutional. (Nov 3, 2008 | post #32)

That really says it all right there, doesn't it? Isn't presumptuous to state that marriage is "ordained by God" without knowing the facts? Marriage is a state-governed contract. The church only has the right to perform a ceremony; therefore, God has nothing to do with it. As a society, we shouldn't have to come up with new types of unions under state law in order to satisfy the "religious freedoms" of some churches. Freedom of religion does not mean that churches can mandate state-governed contracts, such as marriage. This is the same type of "separate but equal" treatment that has been foisted on minorities and women for centuries; now churches want to use the same type of misplaced "morality " in order to disenfranchise yet another minority. It's petty, unfair, unjust, and just plain wrong. (Nov 3, 2008 | post #30)

There's no precedent to believe this. The CA Supreme Court overturned the "will of the people" because of the constitution. You have to remember that just because a majority of people want something to be a certain way doesn't mean it's the "right" thing to do; there's always the constitution to deal with. If a majority of people wanted mandatory prayer in public schools that would also be overturned by the courts because it's unconstitutional. Marriage is not governed or mandated by churches; it is a state-regulated legal contract. Churches are only sanctioned to perform ceremonies; they have no legal authority over marriage. Therefore, they have every right to refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies. (Oct 31, 2008 | post #24)

Do some research; domestic partnerships do not afford all the same rights as marriage. Moreover, churches will not be 'forced' to perform same-sex marriages. Marriage is a legal contract, not a religious contract. It is the state that validates marriage with a license; same-sex couples can, and most often do, get married by a justice of the peace. Churches have nothing to be afraid of. (Oct 30, 2008 | post #22)

I see....you're one of those people who sees things in "black and white", "good and evil", "right and wrong", "us and them" terms. Well, I've got news for you; the world isn't that simple. All issues have a huge gray area and if you don't understand what is in the gray areas then you will go through life full of ignorance, hate, and intolerance for anyone who isn't like you. Now, in the examples you gave earlier, I would like to point out that I think you are grossly misinformed on several issues. There's limited space here, but let's take a look at "entitlements "; what do you mean by that and what, specifically, do you not like? (Oct 30, 2008 | post #47)

So, who are "your" people? Please enlighten us to your world view so we know exactly what you stand for. (Oct 25, 2008 | post #39)

Your "reasoning " and "deep thought" have produced only superficial, unsubstantiated, fear-based rhetoric. "Religious freedom" is just a smoke screen to allow churches to discriminate; case in point is your example of a Catholic adoption agency refusing to allow a same-sex couple to adopt. Would you feel the same way if that adoption agency also refused to allow Jewish, Muslim, or interracial couples to adopt? There is absolutely no legal grounds for a church to be fearful of being sued for refusing to conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony. Church weddings are merely ceremonial; they are not legal without a state-issued marriage license. Bottom line: two consenting adults should be able to love who they want and how they want. Forcing them to be treated differently under the law, based only on their sexual orientation, is discriminatory and should not be legal. (Oct 24, 2008 | post #18)

You haven't named any reason that is justifiable. If you can concisely explain how it is justifiable to discriminate against a segment of society (some of whom might actually be your own friends and relatives) based solely on their sexual orientation, please feel free to do so. (Oct 23, 2008 | post #16)

You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing nut jobs for way too long. You have a very disturbing and distorted view of what America is all about. This country was founded on the principles of a social democracy where everyone is treated equally. Your view that people who openly disagree with right-wing fanaticism as 'anti-American' reinforces my perception of you as a goose-stepping nationalist looking for any excuse to hate someone who isn't like you. Both candidates have had 'associations' with people who they probably wish they didn't. Gordon Liddy is a prime example of a deplorable McCain associate; in fact, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program." Liddy has never paid his debt to society for ...plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis...he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton. And he never paid a price for saying: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." Liddy's advice that day was explicit: "They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches." ...a sentiment, by the way, that he expressed more than once on his radio show. And when asked in later interviews whether he regretted his role in Watergate or for giving instructions on how to kill federal agents, Liddy's answer was no. But really, who would expect remorse from a man who said: When he listened to Hitler on the radio, it "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," he explains. "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]. He sent an electric current through my body." So, if you think Wright and Ayers are deplorable then what about Liddy? (Oct 22, 2008 | post #36)

Monterey County leaders to support gay marriage Wednesday

How does voting on this Proposition "protect our children"? Children are not at risk here; civil liberties are at risk. Or do you think it's appropriate to allow discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation? (Oct 21, 2008 | post #4)

Ummm....the 'bomb factory' was two people making pipe bombs and yes, they got killed doing it. The point is that this happened 40 years ago during the anti-war movement and has nothing to do with Obama. So what if Obama sat on the same educational board as Ayers? So did several republicans and it was founded by the Annenbergs. This has NOTHING to do with Obama and is just being used as a right-wing smear tacticAgain, this has nothing to do with Obama. Wright may very well have some strange ideas; but so do McCain supporters like Hagee and Parsley. Sorry, but guilt by association just doesn't cut itCalling American citizens who disagree with neo-con policies 'anti-American' is divisive and uncalled for. It serves no purpose other than to create a hostile environment. (Oct 21, 2008 | post #34)

The fact is that opponents of sames-sex marriage have no rational reason to oppose it. "Religious freedom" is a red herring and a weak excuse to discriminate against people. Prop. 8 is discriminatory and violates the Constitution. Everyone deserves to be treated equally under the law. Vote NO on 8 if you truly support equal rights for everybody. (Oct 21, 2008 | post #14)

This stated set of beliefs about the 'dangers' of same-sex marriage is based only on irrational fears, not facts or evidence. Churches will have the legal right to decide for themselves whether or not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. There is no legal impact and no way a church could lose its tax exemption. These are just fear-based tactics used by the Knights of Columbus in order to sway your vote. Same-sex marriage harms nobody. (Oct 16, 2008 | post #11)