Some 61 percent of respondents in a CBS News/New York Times poll said they were against gay marriage, up from 55 percent in July, and only 34 percent said they favor gay marriage, down from 40 percent five months ago.

The public has reversed itself on the overall question of same-sex relations. Half now think homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be legal -- a reversal of opinion from the summer, when a majority of Americans thought they should be legal.

More than half now favor an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

At 49 percent, the percentage that thinks homosexual relations should not be legal is the highest recorded since the CBS News/New York Times Poll started asking the question in 1992. As recently as July, 54 percent thought such relations should be legal, while 39 percent thought they should not. Now, 41 percent think homosexual relations should be legal.

A poll is just that, a poll. Did they ask ALL Americans? No, of course not. This is also somewhat of a regional issue too. What do you think would happen if this question was asked in California versus Alabama? Really man, you are jumping to conclusions based on polling methods. People don't change their minds that quickly.

Re-read your poll.

the CBS/NYT poll said 62% favor of Marriage or Civil Unions. 53% of respondents 18-44 said same-sex should be given full-marriage.

It's a good move. More and more kids are turning 18 every day. They believe in same-sex marriages, and can be pulled into the (D) party with that issue.

That's great news. Now it just became mainstream and can invigorate the youth a bit. It is an issue they actually care about.

The actual statistic is 62% agree that there should be federal recognition through either marriage or civil unions o, however, would say polls are irrelevant, we were founded on the principle that the majority are should not decide on the rights of minority.

I am gob-smacked at how many people including politicians do not understand this is how the US judicial and law process was set up.

A poll run in Virginia in the early 60s asked if black should be allowed to marry whites, and a large majority sad NO. When it comes to civil and equal rights, I don't give a darn what people think.

When the old farts die off this will not be an issue.

Fun Fact-

The Republican Party hasn't won a presidential vote since 1929 without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket.

And the Bush name has been ruined forevermore.

Better start looking for another Nixon...

Let ALL AMERICANS vote on it!!

You're still here?

I thought you were packing for your move to Switzerland...

plsthink90 - last time I checked, most states voted it down. Like I said put it on the ballot this fall. Let ALL AMERICANS vote on it!!

Perhaps we should let the people vote on whether blacks should be permitted to vote, or whether mixed-race marriage should be permitted?

PLS,

We don't vote on civil rights. Duh.

Yah, it's effectively a wash *now* - at this exact point in time. I wonder how much difference 6 months or so will make - whether Obama's putting this question into the middle of the debate, getting it into a lot of discussions, making people think of it who hadn't thought as much about it before - will cause more of an unfortunate backlash in that time-frame, or whether more good people will rise to the occasion and listen to the voice of fairness and decide that they should support the party that does more for equality for everyone over the party that doesn't even pretend to on this issue. Either way, and even though it took longer than a lot of us hoped it would, Obama has been more of a leader on the issue than Rmoney ever will be.

this poll# (growing support) is as obvious as the birthmark on the bald head - after getting a haircut from Romney the Barber(ic).

Deport #1.1

If you are going to post poll results.....can you at least make them accurate?

Don't ALWAYS trust the vote - the California Supreme Court granted gay marriage in 2008, the people voted down later in November 2008 -

And you still think We The People are always correct?

Sometimes the elite are more fair. Just look at the Supreme Court decision in Brown v BOE (1954) vs. the lynching mob in the south - esp. after the Brown decision. You just can't trust people's vote all the time.

Government is tasked as a healthy check on the wrong instincts of the people, and vice versa. Neither side can be totally trusted.

you guys are so funny!! What are you afraid of, people would vote it down??? Why would the majority of people not want this, it is a civil right, right?? So what is the problem?? Everytime I have brought this up, you guys freak out, funny. I don't have a problem with it at all, maybe you shouldn't either. After all you guys let the people vote on your wonderful Prez. Think he will get another 4 years?? You might not want people voting on that either!!

Just curious, but how many of those SSM bans were adopted by a vote of the people and how many by a vote of the state's legislature?

Civil rights should never be a ballot issue!

Let ALL AMERICANS vote on it!!

The idea that a majority can simply vote away the rights of a minority group – any minority, be it religious, ethnic, or otherwise – stands against the very premise of the U.S. Constitution, that all of us are equal before the law and that our rights are protected.

To simply vote away the rights of a group you don’t approve of is about as un-American as you can possibly get. Obviously, the majority will always be able to deprive the minority of rights, taking away rights previously possessed, refusing to grant rights never held.

Civil rights shoudl never be put on a ballot. Period.

Real Clear Politics today shows the President up by +1.5% since May 9th, when his comment about equal marriage was reported.

plsthink90 says:

What are you afraid of, people would vote it down??? Why would the majority of people not want this, it is a civil right, right??

I think I just answered your questions 4 minutes before your latest post - a ouple of postes above

Divided even more.

Can't wait to see what he wants to divide this week.

Obama is a true leader ..his vision is for a free America for all ...not just a chosen few ! But the GOP crackers are trying to stop everything he does ..But he has 62% of American people behind him ! That's why Romney is throwing such a hissy fit !

To: Job1 who wrote,

A poll run in Virginia in the early 60s asked if black should be allowed to marry whites, and a large majority sad NO. When it comes to civil and equal rights, I don't give a darn what people think.

You are correct Job1 it should be up to the individual to do as they want. However others might not consent to it and we should not push it upon them. Oh by the way I don't know why I'm telling you this but I had a brother who was gay and died of aids whom I happened to love dearly. We did accept him as his partner with open arms.

I would also say that the President lost about 15% of Black voters (not me, not voting for him for other reasons). Last you misspelled the word said and forgot to place a question mark at the end of your statement. I'm sure I made some mistakes too, but who is looking.

PLS,

you guys are so funny!! What are you afraid of, people would vote it down??? Why would the majority of people not want this, it is a civil right, right?? So what is the problem?? Everytime I have brought this up, you guys freak out, funny. I don't have a problem with it at all, maybe you shouldn't either. After all you guys let the people vote on your wonderful Prez. Think he will get another 4 years?? You might not want people voting on that either!!

Oh, for the same reason people didn't want to desegregate. Or why they didn't want to allow women to vote. You know, fear, bigotry, threats to the "good 'ol boy" network, religious wackiness, or all of the above.

Here's a question for you... Why are YOU so anxious to put it up for a popular vote, especially when you know that we don't vote on civil rights?

MRS,

Divided even more.

Can't wait to see what he wants to divide this week.

Funniest thing ever, when people say that, because unless however many millions of people who live in the country can ALL agree on EVERYTHING, you can ALWAYS say he's a "divider".

This is not a civil rights matter. I also keep reading about people stating that others would also vote not to give blacks the right to vote. This is not the same. Gays are allowed to vote. The issue here is that the government is once again getting involved in a religious matter. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years. Many of you don't like that, but that is the case. Give the gays the civil unions and quit trying to legislate morality to religious institutions.

Sadly, the folks in favor of gay marriage will not stop until they force their views and opinions on the Christian/religion groups, demanding that they think like them. It's no different than the hate that they claim to be against.

Myspellchecker,

This is not a civil rights matter

SCOTUS disagrees with you. They've ruled marriage is a civil right over 14 times. You can also look at it as a 1st Amendment issue (freedom from religion in our legislation), a 9th and 4th Amendment issue (privacy) and a 14th Amendment issue (equal protection).

The issue here is that the government is once again getting involved in a religious matter. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years.

You've mistaken marriage for Holy Matrimony and its equivalents. Marriage is a contractual property agreement, predating organized religion. That's why tons of people every year get married without stepping foot in a church.

Sadly, the folks in favor of gay marriage will not stop until they force their views and opinions on the Christian/religion groups, demanding that they think like them

I'm sorry, did someone force you to get gay married? Like gay people? Tell you that you can't post nasty things about them? I'm really sick of Blues Musicians shoving their music down my throat, does that mean they can no longer hold festivals, or that no one can listen to blues music?

God, how self centered of you.

marriage is a state matter.

When your church marries you, they make sure you have the -state's- permission.

The STATE occassionally outsources to a 501(c) to perform a ceremony. At your request.

But marriage is not a religious matter in the United States. The church of england destroyed that 'religious' thing making marriage a purely religious issue about 500 years ago. His name was Henry and he decided the Church didn't need to be sticking it's nose in marriages and divorces any more.

Do try to keep up.

Every time this has gone to debate, Republicans have said they will support civil unions, but then back track and call it "gay marriage under a different name".

This is totally a civil rights matter. End the discrimination.

Sarah,

Just thought he said he would see to it that he would not going to divide the country.

Sarah, How can you not like the blues? shakes head,

young people sigh.............

nbc/wsj poll.

I bet it is more than a split but hey they have to cover for this Prez.

Fuzzy,

It was just an example, don't worry. :) The blues I don't mind, smooth jazz however... BORING!

NOLIMIT,

Since you're the one in favor of limiting freedom and expanding government into private relationships between adults with legal capacity and informed consent, YOU tell ME how this isn't a civil rights matter.

The burden is on he/she who's limiting freedom to make the case.

The comparison to civil rights is a correct one. There is no equality for monogamous gay relationships like there is in heterosexual relationships. Heck, lynching and Alan Shephard aren't far apart.

This is totally a civil rights issue.

(Lack of) Technician - To what party did Reagan and Eisenhower belong? Do you think people are stupid?

MRWSR, is he dividing by saying all people should have the same rights or is religion divided by denying rights to all people, which side is dividing and by what law or religion. Marriage as has been stated is not a religious right it is a civil right. Who provides the marriage License the Church, Who does the divorce the church. Can a judge preform a marriage, This is for you as well NLS50, marriage is a civil right by law in this country. Marriage is not owned by any religion.

The country gets divided when we try to say a certain segment of the population doesn't deserve the same rights as another segment.

Republicans/Conservatives push legislation that deliberately TAKES AWAY or denys rights from one group of people - and when the President says he is against that he is a divider?

That is some strange logic.....

NoLimitSoldier50

Civil rights covers a wide rage of civil matters and marriage being one of them, just as the right to vote was for women. Civil rights is not owned by or belongs to a certain period or a certain movement.

Marriage equality is about a civil right. Marriage has been deemed a civil right, I can not image how one can find it ludicrous at best that a group of people are being left behind as second class citizens.

myspellcheckerisbroken - The issue here is that the government is once again getting involved in a religious matter. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years.

If marriage is a religious issue, that means DOMA is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment rather than a blatant violation of the 5th & 14th Amendments.

brokenspellchecker, you seem to be confusing the legal contract of marriage with the religious ritual of holy matrimony, which are two very different things.

Tis,

You are putting words in my mouth, so be careful. If you don't think an all out religious divide in this country won't bring down obama, you crazy. I just stated, divided. He said he would unify. Who his base?

NolimitSoldier stated:

This is not a Civil Rights issue. To equate this to what my father endured in the 50-60's is ludicrous at best.

Strange, I seem to recall that many within the Jewish community said the same thing in the 50-60s about black people. Each group wants to think that they suffered the most, but the truth is, it doesn't matter.

I have no doubt your ancestors suffered, but why would you deny that another group has also suffered. Gay people are routinely beaten, disowned and murdered. At least your dad was able to find support in his church and family. Many gay people don't even have that luxury.

Obama causes division in our country in the same way that Lincoln caused division in our country. When a president challenges people racism and bigotry it tends to be divisive.

It says nothing about his character or presidency, however. It's really just a testament to those who oppose him.

The Teapublicans would love to have this issue...however, they won't even recognize the Log Cabin Republicans, who seem to appear every four years or so. I was going to make a closet reference, but then I remembered most cabins don't have closets.

Off topic but related to the elections, housing up 3.4% in April as markets begin to tighten across the nation. Returning the twenty percent of the economy represented by housing construction back to work is just another validation of the President's policies. Like marriage equality.

Oh Teapublicans, get some new tin foil to line your tricorns, because reality is jamming your signals.

Obama/Biden FOUR MORE YEARS!

I just laugh at all these threatened right wingers over gays. You are dinosaurs to be sure, The kids today, thank goodness, dont have the gay bigotry of their parents and grand parents. The world is going to be theirs and they have evolved. Get used to it.....gays and lesbians will have relations, they will have relationships, they will marry, they will adopt children, they will contribuite to a healthy society and econmoy, beacuse they are Ameriucans and humans.

Let the old farts and evangelicals bay at the moon for their perceived loss of 'family values' and loss of white dominance in America. The upcoming generations dont accept the narow minded views on humanity and restriction of civil rights.

The kids are alright!

Maybe Obama sees overpopulation as one of the biggest threats facing mankind and wants to encourage "non-breeders". LMAO

Colorado Man: think before you post: Eisenhower's VP: Nixon, Nixon as President, George H.W. Bush as Reagan's VP, HW as President, W. as President.

It's a conspiracy/aristocracy/Illuminati theorists nightmare.... a/k/a the modern Republican party.

As if there weren't already enough reasons to vote against the Republicans.

It doesn't matter if the religions view it as a 'marriage'.

The state does. And 'marriage', as a civil matter, comes with it's own perks and drawbacks. Taxes anyone?

It's regrettable that some maintain it's a religious function, when all evidence points to the fact that's it's 100% civil and that the state outsources the tasking to religious organizations. But it's not uncommon.

Hence why bigamy/polygamy are both considered felony charges and prosecuted by the state. And not by an Inquisition.

Furthermore, it's also regrettable that such an issue is considered 'divisive'. Historically, 'divisive' issues have always been of much greater importance to the progress of mankind than non-divisive.

Slavery? Divisive.

Civil Rights of the 60's? Divisive.

Interracial marriage? Divisive.

Divisiveness is a redeeming quality of this issue, not a negative aspect. It means that it's time to change and forward the nation as a whole, and now we're going to get to the bread and butter of crafting a fix.

Was going to respond to the genius about Reagan and Ike, but someone beat me to it.

Republican Party has managed to create it's own aristocracy and just doesn't know it :) How does freedom sit with you now, chum?

Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years.

Seperation of church and state. Then what gives you the right to enact laws to make it illegal for gays...or anyone? If its a religios tradition, then get it out of the legislative arena.

FU%K Religious Tradition. It is being used to dicriminate and hate.

myspellcheckerisbroken - Marriage is NOT a contractual property agreement predating religion.

Actually it is just a legal contract, it does predate religion, and your bizarre cult was generally not involved in marriage until after the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s.

However, the more relevant points are these:

- If marriage is a religious issue, why do you think your religious views should control other people's lives? Don't you believe in the freedom of religion?
- If marriage is a legal contract, why do you think your Christian sharia laws about marriage should be enforced by our secular government?

And it seems that your faith must be very insecure if you need the government to enforce it. Your own marriage must also be rather unstable if you need special legal rights and benefits to prop it up.....rights which you'd deny to gay couples.

Funny thing. The NAACP voted nationally to make this a civil rights issue (62 to 2). Seems to me they would know a civil rights issue when they see one.

It is beyond my comprehension why so many people are anxious to use their state constitutions to restrict peoples rights rather than to expand them (guaranteeing rights is the general purpose of a constitution). I think if you don't agree with what is essentially a private matter, keep your nose out of it. If you have so little to concern yourself with, there are a myriad of good works that don't involve making other people second class citizens that you can get involved with.

Don't like the idea of the Gay lifestyle? Don't be Gay. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Don't like birth control? Don't use it. Don't like someones religious affiliation? Mind your own business and let God sort it out. God is supposed to be Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and all powerful. I think He/She/or They can get by without your "helping" hand, regardless of what the promoter of your religion says about it.

@skrekk

You need to go back farther in time, a lot farther. There are plenty of historical records, religious and otherwise, that discuss the parameters of marriage. Some people still follow these religious laws today. It is not religion, whatever that may be, that forced it's views on government. It is government attempting to force it's way into religion, which is a violation of the Constitution. Look, whatever your reasons may be, I understand that you and many others hate religion and it's many institutions, but marriage belonged to them long before governments got involved. Government is crossing a line here and to label this as a civil right is dangerous. We can debate this endlessly, but I won't. Btw, I appreciate that you did not attack with an insult. I mean that sincerely.

@ 2Lane

It is government that has put the religious institution of marriage into the legislative arena, not religion, which is clearly a constitutional violation. Your entitled to your opinions, but clearly from the posters here, it is people like you and Sara who hate, not me. You have exposed yourselves as bigots with an agenda of hate against certain, or perhaps any, organized religion. That's too bad

Myspellchecker: you need to investigate your facts. The ability to be "Married" is a legal status controlled by each individual state. There is no requirement for a religious component.

The entire issue is designed by the far right to force their religious views on the rest of the nation. Recognizing that a person has a right does not diminish that same right which you have. "Giving" people of different races the right to be married did not diminish the marriages of those who are of the same race.

Likewise, giving people of the same sex the right to be married will not diminish marriages of heterosexual couples.

I just don't understand why Republicans, who are so insistent on having a smaller government and getting government out of involvement in private matters, is so insistent in getting government involved in what is essentially meant to be between two people. I guess that lies and hypocrisy from the GOP are just a given.

myspellcheckerisbroken - Also, my sister who is a lesbian, agees with what I have said and has stated that she is perfectly fine with a civil union which allows her all the rights and benefits of a marriage.

That would ring more true if you claimed your sister was black and thought that whites-only drinking fountains and Jim Crow laws were a good idea.

It is not religion, whatever that may be, that forced it's views on government. It is government attempting to force it's way into religion, which is a violation of the Constitution.

Ummmm......no church in any of the marriage equality states is forced to recognize or bless same-sex marriages, so there's obviously no violation of religious freedom on the part of the government. Bigoted churches are free to refuse religious weddings to anyone, and do so every day.

You're either delusional or profoundly ignorant, brokenspellchecker.

myspell..... IF you have a sister who is gay then you would realize that civil unions do not give the same rights as marriage. And, the only bigots on this site are those - like you - who want everyone to be just like them in order to have rights. As a heterosexual, I am not threatened by making sure everyone has the same rights. That doesn't diminish me in any way. And, for anyone who is comfortable with their own sexuality, gay marriage is no threat.

Government is no the problem. Far right religious bigots are the problem. I'm not talking about religion as a whole - just the holier than thou - must believe as you do - bigots.

Romney's dog was Gay !

The only people who have the constitutional right to determine whether or not they wish to marry or live together are those people of legal age. Personal preferences have no legal or moral bearing. We, in this country, have been beating on, and controlling, what should be the self determination of too many, good, responsible people who pose no imposition nor harm due to their individual particular natures. We are nothing short of sorry sons-a-bitches for such bulling. Proud the President finally took the stand He has.

myspellcheckerisbroken - That includes this ridiculous idea of licensing. It is an unconstitutional infringement on religion, any religion. Each religion has it's own parameters for marriage, which the government should not be involved at all.

Sounds like you're still confusing the secular legal contract of marriage with the irrelevant religious ritual of "holy matrimony".

Only the state controls marriage, and your bizarre bronze-age cult of Jewish zombie worshipers controls religious rituals like holy matrimony, baptism, and bar mitzvah. If you want proof, ask yourself whether Catholics can get divorced and remarry.

Since Marriage is a Biblical term why would nonbelievers want to use it.

boredom, who cares? People on here need lives, do you live for the vine?

Lusitania - Since Marriage is a Biblical term why would nonbelievers want to use it.

I'm a married atheist. Both my wife and I as well as the government think your cult is irrelevant to a legal contract, and completely irrelevant to our marital status.

myspellcheckerisbroken

@Sara

It's too bad that you are so weak-minded and insecure that you resort to name-calling. I have seen many of your posts on different articles and it is always the same.

That's just her way of doing things. You are no different than the rest of us. You've made your name-calling, I'll bet. So let's try talking about something with substance, alright???

Marriage is NOT a contractual property agreement predating religion. Perhaps you should focus on history if you ever decide to go to school to get your 6th grade diploma. Religion goes back to the beginning of man and predates even organized government. The first records of marriage define marriage as a joining of souls between a man and woman in the eyes of their God. Note the religious roots.

Technically, religion was only created a few thousand years after the creation/evolution of mankind. Man's first instincts were to hunt, eat, sleep, drink, and mate. They didn't use marriage. Marriage was a formal contract developed later. And even if it does predate government, marriage is not entirely religious. Marriage is recognized by the government, note the secular roots, but initiated by religious institutions. And marriage is nonetheless a civil right. I take it to be part of the Declaration's statement on the rights of men, including the pursuit of happiness. But as the Declaration isn't legally-binding, I do believe that laws like DOMA are unconstitutional because they violate the rights of individuals. How exactly can the government be allowed to use surveillance under the Patriot Act, yet still deny basic rights to ordinary human beings??? That is unfair.

You also make the claim that "tons" of people get married everyday without stepping into a church. Although not my belief, there are plenty of religions that do not view that as marriage. As people like yourself, along with others in government have attempted to distort the definition of what marriage is, these are the things that happen.

For one thing, there is something called the separation of church in state. The government doesn't have to (or should) listen to religions. It should have an independent view. And to be historical, the definition of marriage has fluctuated over time. 200 years ago, a wealthy man could not marry a woman of poor descent. 80 years ago, a white man could not marry a black woman. Thousands of years ago, people didn't choose their spouses; they were arranged. Thousands of years ago, polygamous marriage or marriages with a wife and concubines were the norm, at least for the upper class. The definition of rights, including marriage, has changed as the human mind has evolved on it's level of tolerance for those who are different.

The rest of your post is ridiculous and makes no sense in the context of what I have written. The simple fact is that you hate people who are "religious" and the more that you attack them, the better you feel about your own inadequacies.

I've seen and read some of Sarah's quotes, and frankly as a secular Catholic, I don't see her as either inadequate or anti-religious. I myself have acted in a somewhat pro-secular and anti-religious way. That doesn't necessarily mean that I am anti-religious; it just shows my beliefs.

Finally, the only self-centered poster I see on here is you, trying to convince others that only your opinion is the right one, and attacking those who don't agree with you. I am willing to wager you are not so outspoken outside of the internet. Although I have my own disagreements with organized religion, I respect their position. You don't respect anyone. You have no idea who I am, yet you make ridiculous claims and insults. Such are the attacks of the weak-minded.

I think that you are missing a lot of these posts. Sarah is not self-centered, and I can guarantee you that there are others on this vine, on both the right and on the left, who are self-centered and exhibit that in their posts. Calm down, myspell.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

It has certainly been fascinating to read all the posts on this thread so far! There are a few people I feel I must respond to.

Let me first say that I have read each post to date, and I can confidently say that Sarah 3043284 has
consistently used good manners in her posts. She has not insulted anyone or called anyone names, and she has used humor effectively to assist the other readers in understanding her position.

Alas, myspellcheckerisbroken, I cannot say the same about you. There is a good bit of name-calling and insulting in your post (#147) responding to Sarah and other posters. Here are some of the things you have written:

Weak-minded, insecure, your own inadequacies, you make ridiculous claims and insults, hate-mongering bigots, self-centered poster, you don’t respect anyone, you distort, you hate . . . any many, many more.

In your post 1.54 in responding to skrekk, you say that you appreciate his/her not responding to you with insults--that was nice of you! However, a few of the things skrekk said are: “Your faith must be very insecure . . .” and “Your own marriage must also be rather unstable . . ." While you may not consider these to be insults, I would certainly consider them to be impudent, if not downright insulting, considering that the person knows you only from a few posts on the Internet.

In your post 1.59, you wrote:

. . . you are one of the bigots who hurls insults. Since you have nothing intelligent to add, lamentably I am going to have to put you on the ignore list. It is a waste of time discuss issues with someone who resorts to insults.

Do you realize how many times you have used the word “bigot” or some variation thereof (like bigoted)? No, I haven’t bothered counting them. Let me observe, however, that you have used it frequently.

At some point, you wrote: “Marriage is a religious institution, period.” By using the word “period” at the end of your sentence, you imply that there are no other options or beliefs but yours. Clearly, that isn’t so, or this thread would not exist on Newsvine. Can we not have an open discussion without insults, allowing people to express their differing views?

Myspellcheckerisbroken, I have not in any way written this note to anger or humiliate you. My purpose was to point out that most of your notes are written from the point of the “pot calling the kettle black,” to use an old phrase. What I mean by that is that many if not most of the things you are writing are the things you are accusing others of having written.

Please take some time to think about these things before you post again. Try writing from an attitude of kindness and inclusiveness, respecting other people’s opinions. I really do care to read everyone's opinion.

Kirigami - In your post 1.54 in responding to skrekk, you say that you appreciate his/her not responding to you with insults--that was nice of you! However, a few of the things skrekk said are: "Your faith must be very insecure . . ." and "Your own marriage must also be rather unstable . . ." While you may not consider these to be insults, I would certainly consider them to be impudent, if not downright insulting, considering that the person knows you only from a few posts on the Internet.

Rather logical conclusions given that "myspellcheckerisbroken" wants the government to enforce the sharia laws of his cult, and thinks that his marriage needs to be propped up by special legal rights denied to gays.

FR - In addition, the NBC/WSJ poll finds that a majority -- 54 percent -- would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal.

Yet it loses every time it gets put on a ballot.

This one hurt Obama big time. No way was it a "wash".

This isn't a mind bender. First I agree. It is a civil right and people have no business voting on it. However, should it be on the ballot, you have to realize it will get voted down every time. Why? Because it's difficult to get people out to vote for things that DO affect them, like millage increases and who the next governor will be. Most people are not affected by this one way or another so what would make you think they would bother to come out to vote about it?

Unfortunately, the narrow-minded fundies out-number the LGBT community in most places. And they will come out to vote. And will win every time.

In this instance the poll may make more sense than an actual voter tally. Which is something the bigots that drive the elections in these red states understand very well.

MySpellChecker,

I'm really not that cool, nor deserving of the energy it must have taken you to insult me. I am flattered that you would go to such trouble, but seriously, I'm not worth it. You do, however, need anger management courses.

Here's some substance...

We are a Republic and shouldn't be voting on civil rights, period.

Since SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a civil right over 14 times, why are we putting it up to a vote?

We're a Republic, so there is not question of state's rights here, or majority rule here. SCOTUS, starting in Loving v Virginia ruled that marriage was a civil right. On top of that, the legislation banning gay marriage doesn't pass strict scrutiny and has a religious basis (1st Amendment). On top of that, you can claim gender discrimination in contractual law (Civil Rights Act of 1964). On top of that we have an implied right to privacy in the 9th and 4th Amendments. On top of that we have equal protection under the law (14th Amendment).

Those are civil rights issues, and as a Republic we don't vote on civil rights. And don't give me that 10th Amendment crap, the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states, effectively making the 10th all but null and void. There hasn't even been a 10th Amendment issue before SCOTUS since the '60's when they used YOUR VERY ARGUMENT, to defend segregation. Pssst, they lost.

It isn't the governments job, or the job of our legal system to define marriage, or any relationship. It boggles my mind, that you can claim you're the party of "less government" and then have no problem with them coming into people's bedrooms.

Continuing, the "gays" aren't forcing anything down your throats, the conservatives do. We advocate for NOT using "gay", NOT caring, NOT legislating based on sexual orientation. As in treating them the same as straight people.

In order to stop us from doing that. In order to stop us from repealing laws that SPECIFICALLY make an issue out of being gay or not, the right uses they're Bibles, morals, and religions. When, quite clearly, in our nation, those things have no standing.

It was the right that legislated homosexuality. DADT, DOMA, sodomy laws... It is the right that's fighting to keep legislating homosexuality. They need to stop using it as a political issue, and we will then cease to say anything about their methods and how they go about using them or defending them.

Marriage isn't religious or spiritual, it's contractual and legal. In fact, it's a contractual property agreement that pre-dates organized religion. Ergo, marriages for everyone. When you take that marriage into a church, it becomes Holy Matrimony. That's why many couples are married, without ever having stepped foot in a church.

And, yes, we do have freedom FROM religion.

The 1st Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See the bold part. That right there, is your freedom from religion. To see all the ways we're free FROM religion check this out...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/03.html

Are you honestly saying that the U.S. Government can force someone to be religious? Because if you AREN'T saying that, then by default, we are free FROM religion. This can also be covered through our right to privacy.

For you "strawman" Bible, thumpers...

The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, like anti-gay laws, in no way supports Athieism or infringes on freedom OF religion. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.

Marriage is legal and contractual, ONLY. Any religion or ceremony involved has nothing to do with the marriage per se. You can whine about how YOUR marriage is religious all you want, but that doesn't mean marriage in general is anything more then legal. The world is greater and larger then your personal reality. Just because something is true in YOUR heart, doesn't mean it's true for everyone, and we have a protected right to be free from what's in your heart.

Marriage = Law

Law = Equal Application

Ergo...

Marriage = Equal Application.

Nor has marriage always been between one man and one woman. It's been between one man and many women, one woman and many men, one man and another man's female ward, one man and one woman of the same race, only...

Regardless of your religion, you are STILL subject to the 14th Amendment. Until you can show how two legal, consenting adults, with informed capacity, entering into a contractual property agreement, infringes on someone's freedom to practice their religion, you got nothing. You can practice your religion all you want, however, that right stops when you start infringing on the rights of others or denying rights to them, based on your church's dogma.

Now that we've established that marriage is contractual in the realm of law (which remember is greater then just what you believe or want), I have some questions...

How does two, adults, with legal capacity and informed consent, entering into a contractual property agreement mandate your acceptance of their lifestyle?

If you're claiming that by lieu of entering the contract alone, you're being forced to accept their lifestyle, why don't we ban them from ALL contractual law, i.e. mortgages, credit cards, home improvements...???

Well...I have a thought. Let's put to a vote that all evangelical teabaggers should be deported to Iran or some other evil theocracy. Since they are the extreme minority of the minority, it shouldn't be a problem getting the votes required. It seems just as fair...since the teabagger bigot solution is to put any civil rights up for a vote.

The GOP says that Obama is a divider, yet it's the GOP that is not inclusive.

They say Obama divides by making arguments for helping the middle class is "class warfare". When is the last time you heard the GOP do anything for the middle class.

They say Obama divides by wanting to make legal gay marriage. Yet the GOP doesn't want to give gays this status.

The GOP is not inclusive therefore are the dividers, not the Democrats.

I truly get tired of people repeating that tired line about Obama being the most divisive president in history. What did he do to cause division except get elected? He has constantly tried to compromise with Republicans and has been repeatedly denied the opportunity.

Who said before Obama was even inaugurated that they hoped he would fail?

Which party got together just to plan how to obstruct whatever he tried to accomplish?

Which party questioned our President's citizenship, religion, and patriotism?

Which party's main voice played a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" on his radio show day after day?

Which party said their NUMBER ONE PRIORITY was to make him a one-term president?

Now which party and its leaders are the "most divisive in history", going so far as to put their own political gain ahead of the well-being of the entire country?

I also remember president who was only elected to office only after the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, then governed like he won by a landslide.

I remember a country UNITED after 9/11, and a president and a party that used a tragedy to push through their agenda.

I remember a party and a president that questioned our patriotism if we disagreed, and said "if you are not with us then you are against us" to the world.

Now who was the most divisive president in history?

Romney hates gays, look what he did to that kid in high school. Hack-off someones hair is a very sick act !

Tnsevol,

Noooooo, it was Abraham Lincoln. Heck, he was so divisive he started civil war. LMAO

Einstein -

How can we look at them? He's hidden them!

He evidently has a great deal to hide!

if you dont like gay marriage, blame straight people, they are the ones having gay babies!

Hopefully, this will be one of the "straws" that will cost him the election.

It may be a draw in terms of votes, but it was important, along with many civil rights organizations, and some religious leaders coming out in support of gay/lesbian rights. This was necessary after North Carolina amended their state constitution. It's one thing to make gay marriage illegal, but it's really a bad direction for our country to go when folks use constitutions to limit rights rather than increase rights.

alan290 -- This won't have an effect on the election. Most who are against gay rights wouldn't vote for the president anyway. And Independents like me who support civil unions sure as heck won't vote for Romney.

Increasing? based on what, your hopes? 31 times out of 31 times the people have used their rights as citizens to vote gay marriage down. 31 out of 31 times. Don't believe TV or the liberal/gay media, it's a fool's play.

What a crock of B.S. 1000 people hand picked by NBC most likely from San Fransico. 1000 people are a deciding factor for over 300 million, yea right.

Let me get this straight, 504 people out of a 1000 say what over 154 million Americans believe, I do not think so.

This isn't a mind bender. First I agree. It is a civil right and people have no business voting on it. However, should it be on the ballot, you have to realize it will get voted down every time. Why? Because it's difficult to get people out to vote for things that DO affect them, like millage increases and who the next governor will be. Most people are not affected by this one way or another so what would make you think they would bother to come out to vote about it?

Unfortunately, the narrow-minded fundies out-number the LGBT community in most places. And they will come out to vote. And will win every time.

In this instance the poll may make more sense than an actual voter tally. Which is something the bigots that drive these types of elections in the red states understand very well.

You liberals wrists flap when you type your posts. Obama's wrists flap, and he sways his hips :)

Put same-sex marriage on a nationwide ballot and it will pass.

Not that rights are subject to a vote in the first place.

Of course you would say that capecondom. To heII with what the majority want! right? "Put it on a nationwide ballot". And when it still gets shot down for the thousandth time, I'm sure you'll still have some lame spin for that one. It doesn't take a I.Q. of a dog crap to figure that one out.

Very mature, "Einstein." Not sure where you're going with that. If I say, "Put it on a nationwide ballot" exactly how is that anything but "what the majority want?"

Believe what you want...........we all know that many Republicans refute science........

No, it is Democrats that refute "REAL" science while Republicans only refute "pop" science. There is so much "real" scientific data that debunks global warming it is very hard to understand how anyone can still believe it is true. The only data that supports global warming has been proven to be manipulated poppycock. Heck, liberals still believe that oil was made from extinct dinosaur remains. LOL!!!

I don't think 'refute' was the word you were looking for...

Heck, liberals still believe that oil was made from extinct dinosaur remains. LOL!!!

When it should be clear to anyone that god put it there.

Democrats are in favor of education...and science. Some commenters from the other side like to prove that they either they failed at both or think that "science" is like when the Catholic church told Galileo that, no the earth absolutely does not orbit the sun.

WHAT????

I was driving around my neighborhood over the weekend and noticed 3 houses with "Sold" signs on them that sold pretty fast. Also noticed 2 other homes having extensive landscaping and/or stone work done. These are the kind of discretionary expenditures that don't happen if people feel uneasy. Just a sign to me that things are better in the economy.

An article in the Chicago Tribune last month said 1,000,000 homeowners who bought a home within the last 2 years are now underwater. I hope those in your neighborhood have better results.

Rocco, did that article also say how many total homes were purchased in the US during the past two years? Just curious.

Bruce, I am not sure. I wish I kept it. I found it startling since it indicates that the housing market still hasn't hit bottom.

I have seen contractors trucks, and breaking ground on new homes.

I think the most telling is the increase in rail traffic (I live 1/4 mile from the tracks and can hear it quite well). An increase means more raw materials are being moved because the current business model for large industrial firms is to move materials by rail and finished goods by intermodal frieght. Last year I heard a train once or twice a month. Now its every other day. More trucks are on the road while I drive to work.

Every time I get stuck by a train or behind some trucks, I just smile and say "Bacon and eggs". Those goods moving means someone is able to feed their family.

So how many of these homes who have the "sold" sign got full price for their homes? Are you sure it wasn't a short sale? The economy isn't improving. People are just naturally having lower expectations from the economy and from Obama.

An article in the Chicago Tribune last month said 1,000,000 homeowners who bought a home within the last 2 years are now underwater. I hope those in your neighborhood have better results.

So what? This is only significant if you are flipping houses. If you've bought one to live in, it's completely irrelevant.

This is like losing money in the stock market. You don't lose the shares. When the value goes up your house/stock goes right up with it.

Nothing is a sure thing. The media needs to stop fostering panic and report the reality.

So how many of these homes who have the "sold" sign got full price for their home?

it seems that anytime someone is optimistic about the economy it scare the hell out of you. you need to learn how to love these country, over just some political propaganda. your concern is about a politician getting re-elected because America is turning around, i choose America over any politician.

Oh yea the economy is doing great!!!!!!!!!! Tell that to all the unemployed Americans that voted for Obama, and his job creation shovel ready projects...nice try sheep

eye2eye-3869672

Do really know where Obama is from or just dont care.

nobody cares. I think they are all to worried about Romney's tax return and that he was a bully. Funny stuff!!

eye2eye----have to wonder why Mitt has disclosed fewer tax returns than his own father did. What is he hiding?

eye2eye, Please show all of America your private papers as well.

If I was running for a public office then I would show my "private papers"

When you are running for office nothing is private. These are the rules of the game, don't like them, don't play.

Joe66 - you really SHOULD be embarrassed to post the garbage you post. Where is our President from? Is your IQ about 50 or is it lower?

I really don't know why the left wing nuts are so concerned about Romney's tax returns, most wouldn't understand or be able to read them anyway. BTW, I keep asking the liberals that are talking about tax returns where does it say in any law that publishing any tax returns are required. The only legal requirement is that all candidates must submit a federal financial disclosure, and Romney has done that.

Now if the left wants to make a big deal out of Romney's tax records, why are they not demanding Obama's school records not being released?

That's right, but who can really support Obama...

Hope and Change, now how's that working for you...

A simply solution is term limits for Congress. I would recommend 5 terms for the House and 2 for the Senate. While we are at it, eliminate those Congressional pensions and make them pay into the Social Security Trust fund. Representatives of government are civil servants and they should not have life long careers in government. In the meantime simply vote the incumbent out of office…

SeekingSanity

Why dont you tell us where hes from if you so smart .LMAO

Joe66 - okay idiot. He was born in Hawaii. The governor of Hawaii (who is Republican) has verified his birth certificate. The newspaper ran his birth announcement two days after he was born. It has been checked and rechecked Next question idiot!

Joe66's IQ is in the single digits

Mitt has been running for President since at least 2007; probably earlier. He had plenty of time to arrange his financial affairs so that he could have straightforward tax returns that he could release. The fact that he hasn't tells me there is something in those tax returns he doesn't want us to see.

A normal day it is again, SeekingSanity is attacking someone's IQ in #8.8 and then name-calling in #8.12.

Actually, I would like to see Obama's college transcripts to see what courses he took. Did he have courses in accounting, finance and economics, or did he take courses in radical political ideology ? Why are these secret and hidden from the public ??

I would also like to see if he received any financial assistance by claiming to be a foreign exchange student.

Don't you love how Romney supporters never answer the question, they just deflect it to another question about Obama?

I also rarely hear anyone say why they would vote for Romney, it is always something negative about President Obama.

Obama has had plenty of time to show us how he got into an Ivy League school and his transcripts. What's he hiding?

Why are all liberals so damn interested in seeing the tax returns??? Romney has made a lot of money and this money is now making money, it's called capitol gains. The current tax rate is right around 15% on the net gain of these monies. I think it is fair to assume that the appropriate rate was applied and paid. I could care less if he has money in Switzerland, Cayman, or his personal safe in his basement. Why does it matter to the liberals where he keeps his money?

As far as Bain, do your research and you will find out that the success rate far outnumbers the failures. I feel sorry for anyone who loses their job as I have experienced layoffs in the past. Did I blame someone else....NO. I got out there and found another job.

I Love the USA and this Great country is in need of a change. Obama can take his millions in royalties from his book deals and he, michelle, and the girls can travel around the globe and not miss a step. Of a failed presidency, at least can hang his nobel peace prize medal around his neck and pick up a part time gig as an afternoon host on msnbc.

Joe66 really .....Mr Obama was born in the US. Thats not an issue in debate. He has said enough on his own to question, not his citizenship.

As usual, Jim is stalking. Pitiful little man really.

Obama graduated from Columbia and Harvard so you know all you need to. Clearly the rest is far above your comprehension level. As anyone who has attended college know, you don't get through the first four years without economics; business; etc.

Whine about something of value for a while Jim. It would be such a change of pace for you!

Oooh Stalker, stalker !

I decide what I need to know, not you deciding what I can question, got it ?

AS anyone who has attended college knows, you DO NOT have to take a course in economics or business if you are in a pre-med curriculum, and possibly not as a sociology major... false statement by you again !

Our President has failed to provide the necessary leadership to get a budget in place, and we are in the 4th year of his presidency ! That is simply outrageous !! A budget is required every year and this administration has failed to accomplish this even once ..... at a time when the national debt is over $16 trillion and rising. Obama's budget offering last year was so bad that it was VOTED DOWN by a count of 97 to 0 in the Senate, with absolutely no support from within his own party ! This year's proposal from Obama includes even more spending and Harry Reid has not allowed it to come before the Senate for a vote !!

Yes, knowing whether Obama has the academic background to even UNDERSTAND A BUDGET is important. My guess is that he has never had a course in accounting. If he did, maybe he could understand the precarious financial position our country is in at this moment.

Obama has shown himself to be financially incompetent thus far, and that is clearly above YOUR head !

BTW, I keep asking the liberals that are talking about tax returns where does it say in any law that publishing any tax returns are required.

Nor is it required to show your college transcripts. But both are a tradition.

Our President has failed to provide the necessary leadership to get a budget in place, and we are in the 4th year of his presidency ! That is simply outrageous !! A budget is required every year and this administration has failed to accomplish this even once ..... at a time when the national debt is over $16 trillion and rising.

Last time I checked, Congress has to pass the budget. And when you have an uncompromising part of the opposing party refusing to negotiate, it's downright impossible.

Yes, knowing whether Obama has the academic background to even UNDERSTAND A BUDGET is important. My guess is that he has never had a course in accounting. If he did, maybe he could understand the precarious financial position our country is in at this moment.

In case you haven't had an economics class, deficits naturally rise during a recession. This was technically a depression, making the deficit naturally large. Add that onto the deficits caused by Bush, i.e. the wars and the tax cuts. Our nation's finances could have been in order had we avoided starting two unnecessary wars, creating an unfunded mandate, and passing a huge tax cut that accomplished NOTHING. We also could have done away with deregulating the economy and returning tax rate to Clinton or even Reagan levels. Studies have shown that economic growth tends to be increased when taxes on the wealthy are higher. Could just be a coincidence, but maybe it has something to do with economic equality and investments in things like education and infrastructure.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshiee,

Your argument fall flat and is just another excuse for Obama's failed leadership ! Go back to school !!

During his first two years of office, the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. Are you saying Democrats were obstructing the President ? Has Obama ever received EVEN ONE VOTE for his budget proposals .... from WITHIN his own party ???

You libbys have been sippin on too much of the obama koolaid, your wrists are starting to flap like his.

jim-1455434

Freshiee,

Your argument fall flat and is just another excuse for Obama's failed leadership ! Go back to school !!

I don't need to. Tell me exactly how my argument is flat, will you??? Or are you just saying that because you don't want to admit that your precious right-wing fantasies are just wrong??? What say you???

During his first two years of office, the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. Are you saying Democrats were obstructing the President ? Has Obama ever received EVEN ONE VOTE for his budget proposals .... from WITHIN his own party ???

The Democrats did have control of Congress, but their hold on the Senate was anything but strong because for most of the time they didn't have a supermajority. The budgets were most likely voted down because the Democrats had no backbone and were afraid of being called "tax and spend" liberals by the GOP. See jim; I offered a reasonable counterargument. If you would like to so, be my guest.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

proud - I didn't know Romney had an affair with Brian. Actually I'm sure Brian has better taste!

Its an NBC poll what do you expect? They come up with the results and then do the survey.

You are desperate Dragon... laughingly desperate. Your tin god is flailing and this is the best you yahoos can come up with.

I saw the article regarding AMC. Did you see the article where Timmy "Turbo Tax" Geitner has authorized the Chinese government to but Treasury Notes directly form the Dept. of Treasury? All other nations must go through the federal banks except for China.

must be nice to be a friend of the Corrupt One.

proud: It is factual....is it not?

We are talking about Romney and President Obama....you failed at trying to deflect.

China is buying up all of America and we need to stop it.!

st: Companies like Bain do not care who is buying American companies...as long as they get their money.

Companies like Bain have no investment in America or Americans, they only care about acquiring moutains of money for themselves. They will sell to the highest bidder, even if it is a foreign country, even if they know jobs will be shipped overseas....they DO NOT CARE...their only objective is to make themselves wealthier.

OK Dragdown, So that explains why teachers,police and firefighters invest their pensions in Bain.

Yeah, but do you remember that it was Romney who brought the Olympics back from the fray of the bribery scandal just before the Salt Lake games. I would have asked for more money to fix that cluster f*c% too.

The left wingers can't explain anything when it comes to Bain and what Bain has or has not done. I believe 80% of the companies they invested in have been successful and 20% failed.

Wasn't it President Obama who said when you invest money in companies or in R&D, not all will be successful, some will fail (like his green energy investments that failed). The major difference between Romney (Bain Capital) and President Obama, is that Bain Capital uses private money and Obama uses the tax payers money.

St Clair remember when Japan bought up America, what happen? Are we now Japanese? Or now Korea, with all there car plants in Alabama, California are we now Korean. Just asking.

sfcret

joe continues to quote a statistic that 78% of Bain's investments were successful, but he ignores requests to cite his source. So, what is your source? I can claim some successful investments in my IRA portfolio, but overall winners and losers is a tricky definition. Depends on the time frame measured, etc.

Are you blowing smoke or are just parroting what you got from R Limpbug?

Also, when the Administration invested taxpayer money in green energy it had two objectives. One was to promote alternate energy technology and the second was to create jobs. Mitts the Barber had only one objective, make money by eliminating jobs.

Speaking of green energy, isn't it time we eliminate the welfare for farmers. 40% of US corn is grown to convert to ethanol while the US is fixing to export natural gas.

Stclaire #13.1, Stop buying the China Junk !

Well put Kim!

Actually the birth certificate was printed 2 1/2 years ago so it is not that old. Now his social security number is old. As a matter of fact it wasn't the actual owner died.

Now that we have the birth certificate from Hawaii will he release the one from Connecticut?

No matter where the POS obama was born it is obvious he is not "American."

define "American" in your effed up vernacular, this outta be good...

Kim - If you don't know what would have happened you can only go by what has happened. Try to use some logic. Obama's record is his record. You are trying to run him against something that never happened!

That's ain't gonna fly. He's toast. All the other minucia in your post is just that.

So you posted a non-sequiter followed by minucia.

Good job.

define "American" in your effed up vernacular, this outta be good...

One who puts the needs of this nation over their personal needs.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae !!!

Kimmy V - I stated facts. Why is it you welfare freaks always try to point any current problems at other people?? Is this a trait learned at a young age, or a genetic flaw?? Again, just because bush sucks doesn't mean obama doesn't. He is an absolute failure as a president.

obama still suckin in 2012.

Proud - The nation needs people to rebuild the infrastructure. Grab a shovel you lazy bastard or aren't you an American?

proud: So I guess that leaves Romney out, when he was at Bain they did not care who is buying American companies...as long as they get their money. They don't care if Americans are losing jobs, if jobs are outsourced, if small businesses are closed...as long at they get their money.

Companies like Bain have no investment in America or Americans, they only care about acquiring moutains of money for themselves. They will sell to the highest bidder, even if it is a foreign country, even if they know jobs will be shipped overseas....they DO NOT CARE...their only objective is to make themselves wealthier

America is a Continent, not a country. Just like Europe or Asia... learn geography.

Columbus discovered the continent of "America" 284 years before the United States Of America was formed. A person from Chile is from "America", the same as a person from Honduras, or Canada for that matter

Deport - your moniker should be "deranged" You are truly pathetic with your lies and stupidity. But, my guess is that's all you have.

???

SeekingSanity. I agree ???? they have really gone around the bend on this one. Deport well your mama wears army boots so there. Nah Nah. Ok time for our naps now. when we wake up we will start finger painting.

proudvet

This is to protest your recycling of old urban myths. The circumstances you proudly post are simply not true and have been debunked numerous times. They will live on in your fantasy world until you and your conspiracy fanatics eventually leave this world.

LOYALTEXAN - you just have to reach a point you don't argue with stupid and "proudvet" is just that. Clearly his lies have been debunked over and over again. A first grader could go to SNOPES and prove his drivel is all lies but he continues to post in the hopes that someone on this site is stupider than him.

Tis- I think finger painting is FAR above his intelligence level!

Would have been a big story of they could show obama's evolution was mainstream.

Yep - the real story is that Obama "evolves" while Romney 'flip-flops'.

Classic double standard.

I really don't care whom you marry. I care what the main-stream media reports because from Fox to MSNBC it's all Bull @!$%#!

And that's the real news.

Both Parties

Changing opinion to suit the audience is pandering, aka Flip Flop. Changing opinion based on introspection, analysis of information and consideration of alternate opinions is leadership.

George Washington was a fervent defender of Slavery until he began to question its moral underpinnings late in life. He freed his slaves in his will. Would you consider that Flip Flopping or Evolution?

First, I hope these churches lose their tax exempt status.

Second, some churches are nothing more than cults.

Third, homosexuality is not against God's law and nature. That is an old myth.

Fourth, this will change when the old farts die off.

Fifth, If Liberals Hated America we’d VOTE Republican.

Obama-Biden 2012!

Job1

Just as soon as unions lose their tax exempt status.

Job1

Thank you for being a follower and not having a thought of your own. You will be able to crown your new king come January because you are just as dumb as all the the other sheeple

Wow, that's great - the churches are telling folks how to vote? Can't their parishioners think for themselves?

Just as soon as unions lose their tax exempt status.

Sure, then Churches can pay taxes on any 'donations', pay property taxes, etc.

Job1 - read the Bible. Homosexuality is not in God's favor. Whether you like it or not, that is in the Bible.

We smart and free thinking people will re-elect the man that we elected in 2008, and that man is President Obama.

Obama - Biden 2012!

read the Bible. Homosexuality is not in God's favor. Whether you like it or not, that is in the Bible.

No thank you, I prefer to study the teachings of, " A Course In Miracles."

You mean, We are smart and free thinking people and we will elect someone in 2012 to correct the error form 2008. That man is Mitt Romney.

You forgot the word ARE between "We smart" Not trying to be picky, just trying to show that we all make mistakes.

Actually, I prefer:

We the smart and free thinking people will re-elect the man that we elected in 2008, and that man is President Obama.

Obama - Biden 2012!

Job1,

I guess we will not know until November. HOPE is Mitt Romney and we need a CHANGE

Mitt Romney 2012. I don't like Marco Rubio for VP. Too young.

Mitt Romney completely blows ass, is a bigot, a racist, and a religious Bible thumping freak.

OBAMA 2012~~YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rick Kyle,

What does the bible have to do with anything?

Stclaire

You make the point with your post by advocating for legislation based on biblical beliefs. What if I believed that legislation should be based on Navajo beliefs and tradition? Or based on the Koran? or the Torah? or the Book of Mormon?

Why should your spiritual conviction be any more compelling or authoritative than mine?

This is the reason the Constitution established the principle of separation of religion and government. Once you start down the road of legislatively favoring one set of spiritual beliefs over another, the tyranny of the majority is inevitable.

Job1 - read the Bible. Homosexuality is not in God's favor. Whether you like it or not, that is in the Bible.

Yeah? Cough it up. Chapter and Verse.

Don't forget to beat your wife and stone your neighbor. The Bible says that too.

proud -

Affordable Care Act - fair to everyone

Lilly Ledbetter Law - fair to everyone

ARRA stimulus - fair to all Americans, saved country from Depression

need more?

Jimm Hoiw are these fair for everyone. I have to pay more so yo can have free health care. How about you take care of your obligations and I will take care of mine.

All of my children know I am their father.

ARRA Stimulus.. You mean the funds for friends bill. How that was fair. Seems like it only helped obama bundlers to me.

MF Global ... was that fair? Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Bribery, corruption and extortion so we could have something Nancy said " we have to pass it to see what is in it

Your idea of fair is that the productive part of society is forcibly required to support the non-productive part of society.

Proud, American Health care act is not free health care, it is not paid for by the Government, you have to buy insurance you know the mandate or did you forget that little issue. You will not pay more taxes for the health care act. Lilly Ledbetter, fair pay act for women unless you don't think that is fair. And to your last sentence. What does your bible say about taking care of the sick and poor, where is your charity towards your fellow man. Or did you tear that page out of the bible.

Regardless of age; over 60 and or under 60, which my wife and I are; our believe is that God has set ethics to be obeyed, as written in the scriptures --- specifically, that one woman and one man unite in marriage. If most people knew the truth, they would know our forefathers built our country on Godly values. I/We will not spit in God's face and tell him we are going to acknowledge man's new rules; that of living as degenerates in homosexuality. God loves all but will not condone the immoral use of sex/homosexuality. Believe it or not, one day we will all bow our knees before God. We pray everyone chooses to submit now and accept forgiveness or kneel during judgement day when it is to late --- Believe it or not!

Over and Under 60 - Regardless of age; over 60 and or under 60, which my wife and I are; our believe is that God has set ethics to be obeyed, as written in the scriptures --- specifically, that one woman and one man unite in marriage.

The bigots do tend to be rather elderly.

I/We will not spit in God's face and tell him we are going to acknowledge man's new rules; that of living as degenerates in homosexuality.

Here's what bigots exactly like you used to say about blacks and "god's word":

1964 letter from Mormon Apostle Delbert Stapley to Michigan Governor George Romney:
http://mormonmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/delbert_stapley.pdf

I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith according to the references above given. I fully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations, also stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to accept them into restricted White areas. In my judgment, the present proposed Bill of Rights is vicious legislation. There needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. Certainly I am not for exploiting racial or religious prejudices, but it is the present play·up to the Negro voters which is unnecessarily creating problems that by a more firm, sensible approach can be avoided. There will be a few die-hard leaders, but then that has always been true with any debatable issue. Principle - religious or otherwise - cannot be abrogated for political expediency.

Now, don't think I am against the Negro people, because I have several in my employ. We must understand and recognize their status and then, accordingly, provide for them. I just don't think we can get around the Lord's position in relation to the Negro without punishment for our acts; going contrary to that which He has revealed. The Lord will not permit His purposes to be frustrated by man.

Proud vet

Glad to know your children all know their father. All got the same mother?

ARRA of February 2009 benefited all, but the low wage earners benefited more than the others. It went for subsistence for those at the bottom of the economic heap by backstopping state safety net programs that states could not fund because of their own fiscal crises. It went to the very low wage earners by expanding the Reagan era Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Kudo's Ronnie.

"...the EITC now lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program. In 2002, it removed 4.9 million people, including 2.7 million children from poverty. Advocates see it as promoting the values of both family and work." National Bureau of Economic Research

Everybody who had earned income (a job) benefited from the making Work pay Credit.

Home buyers and the homeless benefited from ARRA in the form of incentives to buy houses and support for homeless shelters flooded with newly homeless from evictions. The housing market was in free fall. You can argue that the program was not completely successful, but at least he did something.

The Obama administration negotiated the extension of the Bush jr. tax cuts, protecting your comfortable income (pension) from taxation.

Your flippant throw off line that the program was a "funds for friends bill" displays a callous nature uninterested in learning the facts.

MF Global. This private investment fund that was looted by a well connected insider is an example of the type of Financial abuse the Administration is trying to reign in over the objections of the Wall Street bundlers. The Teapublicans reject the concept of financial regulations and advocate the repeal of Dodd-Frank.

Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Bribery, corruption and extortion were all conceived and/or nurtured during the Bush jr. Administration. Is it your argument the Obama should have halted all Bush jr initiatives on his first day in office.

Should the productive support the non-productive? Millenniums ago, the old, weak and sick were expected to leave the tribe and die in private. Some animal tribes still follow that tradition. Humans have evolved to exhibit empathy and compassion for the old, weak and sick. By the way, Social Security is a pension pre-funded by beneficiaries.

Other than your parentage, your post is nothing but right-wing rhetoric.

OVER AND UNDER: pleez, don't ask your god to endorse your bigotry, he wont listen.

Over and Under

Don't need details on all your personal antics but evoking the argument of long held personal beliefs puts us back to the Constitution wherein slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person.

Yup, traditions, whether Religious, economic or plain prejudice are important parts of our heritage. But like the aftermath of the Civil War, the time came for us to move on.

Over and Under 60 - I don't believe you follow God's laws at all.

Do you wear clothing with blended fabrics, like cotton and polyester? Ever had a haircut? If you saw a neighbor picking up sticks in his yard on a Sunday, did you fail to kill him? Do you shave? When your wife gave birth, did you kick her out of the house for 32 days (for a boy) or 64 days (for a girl)? Do you keep more than one measuring device in your home? If a neighbor had a rebellious child, did you fail to help that neighbor stone the child to death? Have you ever planted more than one kind of seed in your garden? Have you ever eaten lobster, clams, crabs, shrimp, mussels, oysters, scallops, or catfish?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are an abomination in the eyes of God. Just like gay people.

Nahzuul - "Lost in all the polls"? Please show us your data.

I sure don't see that 2008 "Hope and Change" wave of crap hitting the Nation. He has a record to defend and it sucks.

The sound bites of his lies are not lost in the polls.

You will want examples: One is the removal of Lobbyists. There are more than ever. He never took drugs. Oh, wait even he says he did.

Nahzuul - the people that are voting for Romney could care less about how much they like him, all they care about is their hatred of Obama. That is what motivates them. You could have Daffy Duck on the republican ticket and they'd be raving about how much better than Obama he is. They've been gearing up for this election since McCain conceded, all you need to look at is the 2010 midterms to understand that.

The President is in trouble in this election due to this, no other reason. All you need to see this is the continuation of the 'birther', 'wright', and 'community organizer' slogans that his opponents are espousing.

Both Parties - i agree with your Lobbyists comment. on the drugs vein, i'm starting to wish a few more people did drugs. Then they might have a few more original ideas and general open-mindedness.

Take for example all the money spent prosecuting the war on drugs and incarcerating non-violent drug offenses. supply and demand states that if there wasn't demand (i.e., people wanting drugs) there would be no need for supply. The best move for this country would be the legalization and regulation (i.e., taxation) of pot. you instantly reduce the cost burden of the prison population (cutting a large portion of the federal dollars spent on prisoners), create a new industry and therefore new jobs (i'd suggest making a model where only mom and pop stores could get the necessary licenses to grow/market the product, thereby assisting local economies), additional revenue for the federal government (through taxing at a 50-65% rate like cigarettes and alcohol), and can use some of the revenue to develop a system to help the true addicts (speaking as a 14 year clean smack addict/alcoholic here) rehabilitate themselves. Incarceration of drug offenders only does one thing in my experience: give people new sources. It in no way helps to rehabilitate the offenders, and does nothing but increase the burden on the rest of society to take care of them.

Flip flopped on gay marriage as well as these 10

1. Keeping Guantanamo open

2. Bringing back military tribunals for terror suspects

3. Continuing renditions of terror suspects

4. Ordering military action in Libya without seeking Congressional authorization

5. Dropping Third Site missile defenses in order to appease the Russians

6. Letting Sudan off the hook for the Darfur genocide

7. Backing a federal Europe after defending national sovereignty

8. Pledging to restore America’s standing in the world but lowering it instead

9. Dumping Mubarak in Egypt after calling him a "stalwart ally"

10. Killing the NASA manned space program

who cares if he was sincere or not, saperation of church & state comes in on these subject.Obama is a president of united states and we expect him to protect our freedom & rights, not to inpose his religous believe on us. as a personal level my guess is he probable not sincere about supporting gay married, but as a president'' is the best decision he could make.

he will support anything if it gets him a vote!!

Not true, he is not supporting the republicans unless they are nothing.

at least he do not have to support republican extremist agenda that brought us into these mess.