It is like the old song Love and Marriage

• JIHAD - sm
  • If you want to post something on the subject, post - Backwards typist
    • People in glass houses... - Sonny
  • I wasn't going to even read this tripe, but I did..... - MT and worn out
    • The opposition is going to fight the other side... - Zville MT
    • It is called Democracy. - Sweet Grapes
    • Everything would be just peachy if we voted in McPain, right? - sm
      • The majority, as you put it, did not even - Backwards typist
        • And just how do you propose to know what the majority - Did or did not know?
        • P.S. Who decided he was the perfect one - Backwards typist
      • That's not what she was saying - icytoes
        • Not about Bush? Your whole message - uhuh
          • That wasn't my whole message - you just picked out the sentence you wanted to - icytoes
        • Can you please identify any good that - uhuh
          • Stop bringing up Bush - this post was not about Bush - icytoes
            • It is like the old song Love and Marriage - Bushwacked
              • And Bush inherited a lot of crap from Clinton - icytoes
                • Yeah, it would be nice if magic could - uhuh
                  • Getting serious means putting blame where it belongs. - icytoes
                    • Hey, icytoes, you have a lot of sense - Backwards typist
                      • Thanks Backwards Typist - aint that the truth - icytoes
                    • Reality? - warmtoes
                      • Reality - most of the people voted for him only because of his race - icytoes
                        • They voted for him because he was half white? - sm
                          • Only in her imagination. - Reality Check
                      • The majority of the people didn't vote him in because of his polcies - icytoes
                        • My DH and I, both middle-aged and white, voted for Obama because - uhuh
                          • Well your in a crowd of a very few - icytoes
                            • Good for you for voting your conscience. - uhuh
                              • Thanks. Here are just a couple comments - icytoes
            • So one more time...please define - uhuh
              • And once again - see message - icytoes
        • Read a funny quote once and your post reminded me of it. - Zville MT
    • So, it was okay for the uber-right-wing neocons to elect Bush and nominate McPalin? - sm
      • Ummmm....uber right-wing neocons would NOT... - sam
        • Uh, that's McPalin, sam - Truthseeker
          • Uh, that's McCain/Palin - really do need to get that one straight - Time for the truth
            • You're right...should be McPain... IMHO. - uhuh
  • same old show - ArkieMT
    • You certainly have that one right - good observation - icytoes
    • Lazy Response - Truthseeker
      • It's not a lazy response, it's the truth. - Zville MT
    • Wonder what it will take to get everybody else to realize this? nm - LVMT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

the bit about the open microphone on McCain during the debate was brilliant!!! I laughed until I literally cried!!  By the way, Michelle Obama was warm, intelligent, sincere and very much First Lady material!!!

It made me tear up.  My granddaughter *caught me* and wanted to know what was wrong.  I just told her I heard a very sad song that was unfortunately very true.  She wanted to hear it, and I played it for her, as well.  Thanks for posting this.  Pink is in good company.  There are more and more of us every day that he can't/won't walk with.

Anyone seen the kids singing the Obama song.  It's way way creepy.  They're all dressed in their little uniform and doing hand gestures and you can definitely tell the kids do not know what the lyrics mean.  It was on the Obama website but after so many negative comments they took it off.  One commenter on AOL wrote "it is eerie.  What on earth are children doing praying to a candidate?  I'm not sure what bothers me the most:  Is it their glassy-eyed stares?  Is it their Children of the Corn-fed good looks?  Their hyptonized vibrato-less tones?  Someone else wrote "This has more than a little whiff of Havana and Moscow about it".  And another commenter wrote "These kids are already being taught to worship Obama as if he were some kind of god.  That's what kids in North Korea, Cuba, Saddam Hussein's old Iraq, and other totalarian regimes were taught to do as well.  The purpose is if they grow up seeing their leaders as god-like they're less likely to rise up against them." (now that's one of the best observations I've read).

Anyway...here is the link and you can see for yourselves.  Don't watch it before bed unless you don't mind nightmares. 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0LsrtppY2Dc

"I look forward to working together in the New Year," Saltsman wrote. "Please enjoy the enclosed CD by my friend Paul Shanklin of the Rush Limbaugh Show."

The CD, called "We Hate the USA," lampoons liberals with such songs as "John Edwards' Poverty Tour," "Wright place, wrong pastor," "Love Client #9," "Ivory and Ebony" and "The Star Spanglish banner."

Several of the track titles, including "Barack the Magic Negro," are written in bold font.

The song, which debuted on Limbaugh's show in late March 2007, latches onto an opinion column in the Los Angeles Times of the same title. That column, penned by cultural critic David Ehrenstein, argued that Obama could serve as a balm to whites who felt guilty about past treatment of African Americans.

Limbaugh first highlighted the column the day it ran, according to a contemporary report by Media Matters, the liberal watchdog agency. Media Matters reported Limbaugh repeated the phrase more than two dozen times the day the column ran.

The following month, Shanklin debuted his version of the song, sung to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon" and performed in Shanklin's impression of AL Sharpton.

"See, real black men, like Snoop Dogg, or me, or Farrakhan, have talked the talk, and walked the walk, not come in late and won," one verse in the song says.

Saltsman said he meant nothing untoward by forwarding what amounts to a joke more at Ehrenstein's expense than at Obama's.

"Paul Shanklin is a long-time friend, and I think that RNC members have the good humor and good sense to recognize that his songs for the Rush Limbaugh show are light-hearted political parodies," Saltsman said.

Republicans searching for ways to attack Obama have been hesitant to embrace any reference to his race. Limbaugh presciently predicted his allusion to the column nearly two years ago would win attention from left-leaning organizations that would suggest he was using Obama's race against him.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rnc-candidate-distributes-controversial-obama-song-2008-12-26.html

This must be why you so obviously love Muslims? 

You do realize that you contradict yourself on just about every other post you make?  ROFL..

Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics?  I don't think it's ever been explained.  I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that.  On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too.  I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue.  To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact).  So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns.  - Thanks.

For or against?  And why? 

   I am personally for it.  It hurts nobody, but for some reason all the religiosos seem to be terrified of it. 

All the old subjects are pretty stale.  So here's a new one.  State your views.

Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right.

What exactly do they want a president to do about it?

by Kathy Belge

You hear the politicians saying it all the time. “I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.” What exactly does this mean? Some even say they support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage. Is this possible? And why do gays and lesbians want marriage so badly when they can have civil unions?

First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.

What is a Civil Union? Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions.

Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.

What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washingtonoffer very few benefits to the couple.

What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

It's just common sense since two people of the common sex cannot procreate.

...and no I don't advocate a theocracy.

As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words.

What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said:  Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men.   So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.'  That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status. 

How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it:  'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'?  Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states. 

How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'?  What if they had said:  Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales.  Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry. 

I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes.  But a fair number of folks rightly would have said:  Huh?  Aren't these silly distinctions?  A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'  

If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?

AUGUSTA – Gov. John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.

“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,”  Baldacci said in a release. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”

“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Baldacci said.

“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”

but unfortunately many see it as a temporary situation.  Some people honestly cannot help their marriages dissolve, however, even if you throw the religion aspect out of it homosexuality doesn't even make sense in Darwin's theory.  Homosexuals would naturally die out, because they aren't procreating.

I've not had children either, but just because I haven't and you haven't doesn't make a case for homosexual marriages.

Until then, if you stated you were married to a person, called them husband and wife, and went to a lawyer to papers made up and signed, you had the same rights as a married couple.

If you wanted to separate, you had to follow the rules of married couples and go through the courts. 

Through common-law marriage, the couples were also recognized by the federal government as being married. Some states did not recognize common-law marriage, so if you wanted to move to another state, you had to be careful where you moved. You had to pick a state that recognized it.

My point being, I don't see why Civil Unions would not fall under the same rules as common-law marriages. They are the "same difference."

It's very hard to contest a will and the party who contests it is the one who must pay the legal fees (not sure if its for both parties or just the one contesting). Anyone can leave anything to anybody in a will if they are "of sound mind and judgment."

Hasn't anyone checked CA to see if they have common-law marriage?