I really don't think i'm going to convince anyone who believes differently, so i'll save my breath.

why would someone CHOOSE a lifestyle that they know could bring social stigma?

"The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23,24.

Uhm I would say he understands the community far more than you think.

I dont see anywhere in his statement that he thinks an "entire race" is doing this.

What's even more interesting about the black populace...

...a great number of black men indulge in what is called "On The Down-Low",

where men have sex with other men, but it's ok, just because "It's Only Sex" and it's "Just between us Bro's".

(Of course it's also responsible for a huge amount of unprotected sex, and then they go home and have sex with their girlfriends/wives unprotected and help to cause the epidemic proportion of HIV/AIDS among blacks...that part's not so funny)

So why would a population which has more hidden gay activity than any other vote against gay rights??

I think his point is a very good one actually and to me it bolsters his credibility and knowledge about this issue and the community at large.

She didn't even know the difference between a country and a continent.

That claim was already discredited which turned out to be a bogus. Get up to speed with the facts.

Fox News won't be retracting Carl Cameron's original report about the Palin/Africa flap, because it did not come from Eisenstadt

The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin _ not the Fox News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.

"To be very clear, no, we were not the source for Carl Cameron and never spoke to him," Mirvish tells TVNewser. "We took credit for his anonymous sourcing. If they were going to be cowards, then we figured we may as well step in."

SARAH PALIN WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT-- TRUST ME

THE FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (Additional title added by ME, because I think this is what this article is actually about)

The small smear of red on the otherwise blue electoral map looks more like a minor bloodstain on a dirty Band-Aid than anything resembling a national political party. Who voted for McCain/Palin in bigger numbers than they even voted for Bush/Cheney? Only one shrinking group: uneducated white folks in the deep south and a few folks in Appalachia. Take away the white no-college-backwoods-and/or-southern McCain/Palin vote and the Republicans would have been approaching single digit electoral college oblivion.

Sarah Palin will never hold national office nor will any Republican at the presidential level for a long time to come. Why? Because America has uneducated jerks in it but is not a nation of uneducated jerks. The Republicans are done, hoisted on the petard of their own "southern strategy."

The Republican Party is only a step away from becoming the fringe of the fringe, identified more with cross-burning weirdoes wearing hoods, folks like the Alaska secessionist party, all those gun owners stocking up on assault weapons before the "Socialist/United Nations/Obama/Muslim" conspiracy comes to fruition, than with anything remotely like a serious national political force.

The Republican Party--and I speak as a former lifelong Republican who, up through the 2000 primary campaign supported John McCain and even worked for him by arguing his case on various conservative and religious radio stations--is now the toy of the Rush Limbaugh windbags. These folks include outright crazies (such as Sarah Palin's Assemblies of God pals who are waiting for Spaceship Jesus to rescue them and/or rooting out "witches" from their midst), white racists and a few not-very-bright attention seekers, including Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity etc.

Read their blogs! Listen to their talk radio! You'll be in the twilight zone of front page tabloid fantasy on a par with Bat Boy Attacks! headlines. Bill Buckley roll over.

The Religious Right, the racists, the anti-gay hate-mongers are now not only marginalized but thoroughly out of step with even members of their own former constituency. For instance the Gordon College student newspaper (Gordon is an influential Evangelical College north of Boston) endorsed Obama this year. Many young evangelicals voted for the Democrats. James Dobson, Fox News, Limbaugh et al. were utterly powerless to do more than stir up hate. They are losing the next generation of their "base."

Meanwhile many former Republicans--like me--ran to Obama as fast as our legs could carry us and away from our willfully "we're not an elite" moronic former party. Republican commentators such as David Brooks and George Will mourned the loss of the Republican center. Others noted the Republicans have become anti-intellectual. "Anti-intellectual?" They wish! How about simply anti-literate?

Meanwhile the fringe of the fringe is holding meetings where they'll talk to themselves and look at the "facts" of their alternative universe in order to figure out "what went wrong." These are the same "leaders" (like William Kristal) who think Sarah Palin has a big political future!

Sarah Palin will never be president because the right wing of the Republican Party has perfected the art of believing their own bullshit, starting with the idea that is-Africa-a-country-or-a-continent?-Palin has a future. Palin and her fans don't know it yet, but having reduced itself to a grim angry joke, the Republican Party has also divorced itself from American politics and, along with that dirty used Band-Aid, is destined for the garbage can.

What's the best defense against the rube/Palin voters derailing the Republican Party forever? If the statistics of who voted for whom are correct, the education of white people in the deep South and their economic empowerment is the best answer. Maybe it will take a black Democratic president to figure out some affirmative action program that can get our southern born-again white underclass into colleges and thereby save the Republican party.

IMHO, It’s probably time to redefine the meaning of marriage.

Marriage = A “Religious” sanctioning of a union between a Man & Women, (as it currently is) done ‘ONLY’ by a ‘church/religious official’ & recognized by the Govt. for the purpose of taxation and other perceived benefits.

Civil contracts = an official “Non-Religious” joining of whoever or whatever that wish to be joined together (done by a Justice of the Peace, or even a county clerk) and legally recognized by the Govt. for the purpose of taxation and the other perceived benefits of marriage.

This would leave it up to individual religions to grapple with the problem thus removing the Govt. out of the argument, as the Govt. would see both as simply civil contracts that are equal under the law the only real difference would be where the ceremony took place, thus avoiding the separate but equal arguments currently being used.

So Catholics could say, No Way, not in my church.
But Some Presbyterians could be ok with it. Ect….

Of course that would be too easy and make too much common sense.

The black man will be the one to change more then any of us ~ his excuse to underacheive is gone. He now be da man. No more a victim of life circumstances. Perhaps with new found hope and instilling of personal responsibilities and family conmittment ~ our jail population will start to thin out. ~ That always been a hudge load for socity to carry.

Why not get government out of the marrying business? Let faiths do the marrying, government endorse civil unions. From a legal perspective, why not just let any two people declare themselves a 'union' and enjoy all the tax, inheritance, etc.... benefits any married couple can. The sexual aspects just shouldn't be an issue. There are plenty of sexless conventional marriages out there. If I wanted to link myself legally to my best friend, why not let me do that? Whatever does or doesn't happen behind closed doors is NOT the government's business, so long as no one is being abused.

The question with me as I've stated before is where do WE as a society draw the line."

And this question was already answered before you asked it: The court has said that the line is crossed when the rights of one individual or group supercede the rights of another individual or group.

You've proven here that you can see beyond the liberal view to the issue itself and I think that is so important because there are many issues that demand the ability to think independently of a party.

I'm not giving you praise because you're agreeing with my stance on this issue, but because you've proven to me that you are not just another liberal mouth piece that doesn't think but goes along with the party.

As far as marrying your sister, or five other people, or really any other consenting adult........unless someone can prove that it will negatively affect others, go for it.

By the way, the reason that we currently don't allow it is because of the possible genetic risk to any child they may concieve. Marrying your sister / cousin was widely accepted until the last few hundred years, so this is possibly one of the worst 'slippery slope' arguments that you could have chosen. It's even in the bible......as is polygamy.

Bingo. Marriage does not equal procreation. If we assume that procreation is necessary, and we are going to remove the ability for two individuals to marry because they are not able to biologically have children with eachother, then we must logically remove marriage for heterosexual people who are infertile.

I disagree both in principle and in practice. Like above, I don't agree that marriage is necessary or even intended to increase procreation.

Even if it is intended to increase procreation, the fact that we have so many single mothers should make it plainly obvious that we DO NOT have a lack of procreation currently occuring. So why are we encouraging population increase anyway?

I also don't see allowing gays to marry as causing a decrease in the amount of overrall births either.

What does it take away from another person if same-sex marriage is made legal?

Rayz, in spite of all your hard work presenting your case ~ your argument is a moral/religious one and laws and civil rights are not based on that.

It is not about nature vs. nurture and why gay people are gay. Judges don't make rulings based on whether or not they approve of the gay lifestyle. Once you can see that, maybe you will be able to see the issue from another perspective.

I think pornography is disgusting, immoral, and wrong on many levels, yet it is legal. What two consenting adults do is not for anyone else to dictate as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

There are already laws on the books making it illegal to discriminate against others on the basis of race, age, disability, national origin, gender, and sexual orientation in the workplace.

So do you think it's ok for employers to deny qualified people a job or terminate them because they're gay and the employer thinks homosexuality is immoral? If not, how is that any different than denying them the fundamental right to marry ~ from a LEGAL standpoint, NOT a religious or moral one?

Moral outrage and religious objection are not legal grounds for discrimination and they never will be. Approval or disapproval of the choices other people make in their lives are not legal grounds for discrimination either.

It doesn't matter if you think gay people are born that way or if they choose to live that lifestyle (which is hogwash, by the way), or if they could "fix" it, etc. That is not what laws are based on.

And no, nobody is asking you to accept anything.

People who support equal rights for all citizens are simply saying that whether you agree and accept them or not, you do not have the right to discriminate against them. I don't know why people are so incapable of seeing that simple reality.

I agree, it is a decicion to act on what you feel. It is just as much a decision to act on homosexual desires as it is to act on heterosexual desires. So at the risk of implying that you are sounding like a bigot.......are you saying that one 'lifestyle choice' is better or more deserving of legal recognition?

I guess first we would have to ask whether people are born straight or not, right? See personally, I don't care if straight people are born that way because as long as straight people getting married doesn't hurt me or anyone else......why try to outlaw what two willing adult participants engage in?

Legally speaking there was no definition to marriage until religious people tried to force one.

Rayz, nobody is asking you or anyone else to agree with their lifestyle...

... nature vs. nurture attributes of homosexuality. That isn't what Proposition 8 is about. It is about civil rights, period.

This, for them, is about not being treated like a second class citizen by calling their marriages "civil unions" or whatever other label they're grudgingly offered. They deserve equal civil rights under the law, period. The only "agenda" they're pushing for is freakin' equality. How dare they...

He really does have some psychological attention-craving disorder, the end. The man has saved countless lives over the decades by advocating for safer automobiles, cleaner air, water, and food, worker safety regulations, and most importantly the election of George W. Bush. Now he’s just some crazy racist losing an argument to a relatively mild-mannered Fox News anchor.

Actually, it's about giving people the right to be with a loved one in case of emergency...

...protecting their loved ones in the case of death that might eventually be put out on the street while family members squabble over an estate.

with us leaving Iraq immediately when he gets in january
I have guns to hide
and when terrorists come attacking the US, i'll have my rifle and handgun ready.
I'll be prepared if someone breaks in, and there are still jury's, and I would be appealing till i got to supreme court if I got in trouble for shooting someone in MY house because I felt my life was at risk.

I've got no problem with Obama being president, he's a fairly intelligent guy, but he's horribly underqualified (most underqualified candidate for President in my lifetime)

Throwing out those who are corrupt, who lie, cheat, and steal? Our new president elect is guilty of all of these things and we've proven it with the articles on soft money contributions and the breaking of his word on campaign finance, the absolute destruction of campaign finance through his attempt to buy the presidency, which was also successful. Yup..real moral guy, that one.

...it must be really weird for a Christian to actually defend those who have absolutely no belief in God, who make fun of and defame His name, outright corruption and lies, the murder of unborn children, gay marriage, and whatever else you're planning to stoop to supporting next.

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

His behavior seemed to be rather "harsh" from my perspective.

I know you have your head on straight, but I've been hearing plenty of contrary statements.

You can call me a cynic all you like, and if that's your definition of what I am, fine. I prefer to think of myself as a realist.

There is a reason McCain didn't offer everyone the moon and the stars: he knew there was no way he could deliver. And there is no way Obama can deliver everything to everyone either, and a lot of people are going to be hurt by all the promises he doesn't keep, because the expectations are too high.

Once people realise he's just a mere mortal like the rest of us, then maybe he can do something with the mess he inherited.

-- McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.

-- The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and very disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that the crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" Michelle Obama said to a top campaign aide.

-- On the Sunday night before the last debate, McCain's core group of advisers--Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis, adman Fred Davis, strategist Greg Strimple, pollster Bill McInturff and strategy director Sarah Simmons -- met to decide whether or not to tell McCain that the race was effectively over, that he no longer had a chance to win. The consensus in the room was no, not yet, not while he still had "a pulse."

-- The Obama campaign's "New Media" experts created a computer program that would allow a "flusher"--the term for a volunteer who rounds up nonvoters on Election Day--to know exactly who had, and had not, voted in real time. They dubbed it Project Houdini, because of the way names disappear off the list instantly once people are identified as they wait in line at their local polling station.

-- Palin launched her attack on Obama's association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain's advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting.

-- McCain also was reluctant to use Obama's incendiary pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue. He had set firm boundaries: no Jeremiah Wright; no attacking Michelle Obama; no attacking Obama for not serving in the military. McCain balked at an ad using images of children that suggested that Obama might not protect them from terrorism; Schmidt vetoed ads suggesting that Obama was soft on crime (no Willie Hortons); and before word even got to McCain, Schmidt and Salter scuttled a "celebrity" ad of Obama dancing with talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres (the sight of a black man dancing with a lesbian was deemed too provocative).

-- Obama was never inclined to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate, not so much because she had been his sometime bitter rival on the campaign trail, but because of her husband. Still, as Hillary's name came up in veep discussions, and Obama's advisers gave all the reasons why she should be kept off the ticket, Obama would stop and ask, "Are we sure?" He needed to be convinced one more time that the Clintons would do more harm than good. McCain, on the other hand, was relieved to face Biden as the veep choice, and not Hillary Clinton, whom the McCain camp had truly feared.

-- McCain was dumbfounded when Congressman John Lewis, a civil-rights hero, issued a press release comparing McCain with former Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a segregationist infamous for stirring racial fears. McCain had devoted a chapter to Lewis in one of his books, "Why Courage Matters" and had so admired Lewis that he had once taken his children to meet him.

-- The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for the Democratic primary debates, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me ... answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

"I believe that middle class white workers were tricked by Republicans
telling them that blacks were collecting welfare because they did not
want to work--and this led to voters in Southern states switching to
vote against their own interests. I also believe (as my father, your
grandfather, said) that there is a difference between being stupid and
ignorant. The fact that many white Southern voters will vote for Obama
is that they now realize that they were tricked. Making the rich richer
doesn't trickle down to feed their family, or help their children go
to college. White middle class and poorer white guys were not stupid--
just ignorant of the true meaning of Republican policy. After 8 years
of W they (at least many of them) now know."

I am not afraid for me bubba...I have enough money and other necessity's to last another 4 years easy. What I have in the stock market will be coming out if Obama wins...my 401k will be in my pocket soon afterwards. I fear for the average person that is going to be taxed to death...for the business's that will be taxed into layoffs and increased cost passed to the consumer because of Obama's socialistic plans. My health care is taken care of so he can't touch me there either..As for my payroll taxes..I am going to claim 9 and deduct the air I breath. The Dems will not get much out of me for their bs welfare programs.

He isnt crazy and he has run a brilliant campain. The man is intelligent, and in the end, I feel he will govern more to the center, trying to keep us all happy.

Today we raise generations of democrat voters and pay them with welfare and other entitlements...Look lets be real...if there were no welfare there would not be any democrats...

No, sorry, rayzr, you did NOT vote for change… you voted same old/same old....Anyone who thinks that Obama represents change can’t see past his color.

This election should not even be close.