A Message From Lucianne  







S-G1




























ST-GC


   
 
Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute | Register | Rules & FAQs
Privacy Policy | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password | Search Using Google


The shaky science behind
same-sex marriage

Washington Post Writers Group, by George F. Will

Original Article

Posted By:StormCnter, 3/17/2013 6:32:38 AM

When on March 26 the Supreme Court hears oral arguments about whether California’s ban on same-sex marriages violates the constitutional right to “equal protection of the laws,” these arguments will invoke the intersection of law and social science. The court should tread cautiously, if at all, on this dark and bloody ground. The Obama administration says California’s law expresses “prejudice” that is “impermissible.” But same-sex marriage is a matter about which intelligent people reasonably disagree, partly because so little is known about its consequences. When a federal judge asked the lawyer defending California’s ban what harm same-sex marriage

      


Post Reply  

Reply 1 - Posted by: revdeppisch316, 3/17/2013 7:08:55 AM     (No. 9229019)

Science-- social science--too bad we can´t nix this "inevitable outcome" on moral grounds, since the LAW is based on morality.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 2 - Posted by: EnsignO´Toole, 3/17/2013 7:16:15 AM     (No. 9229026)

Since when is God "shaky science"?

Lev. 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

I have no idea what the Quran says nor do I care, but the Muslims will not be as kind as Americans are to homosexuals law or no law.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


   

 

R-G1
  
R-VAR_AD


 
Reply 3 - Posted by: dcomd, 3/17/2013 7:56:05 AM     (No. 9229065)

Amen #2!!

I do not know precisely what the Quran says but there is a Hidith from the prophet Muhammad which goes something like:

´Let the sodomite, and the one who allows himself to be sodomized, be killed.´

I guess Barky just loves to mock the prophet Muhammad which, incidentally, should be shouted from the highest yardarms!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 4 - Posted by: udanja99, 3/17/2013 7:58:13 AM     (No. 9229068)

Same sex "marriage" is only the law of a few states but we´re already seeing calls for polygamist marriage, group "parents" for children and seminars at places like Yale urging "tolerance" for incest and bestiality. Remember way back when - the homosexual activists claimed they only wanted "tolerance".

Now they want, instead of "Heather has two Mommies", "Heather has two Mommies and a Daddy" or Heather has Mommy and her brother, Uncle Andy, or Heather has Daddy and his Sheep. It´s coming and if we don´t stop it now that´s where we´ll end up. And they´ll demand that we pay for all of it. Goodbye society, hello chaos.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 5 - Posted by: Liberal like Jefferson, 3/17/2013 8:27:48 AM     (No. 9229087)

If government was not in the business of playing favorites in your relationships this issue would die on the vine the very next day.

How about we conservatives stick with that line rather than thowing Old Testament verses around? Only a church can "marry". The government can then punish or reward the relationship based on how the participants are treated via taxes and government benefits. Sounds a lot like TARP and the GM bailout, doesn´t it?

Homosexuals (male and female) have made up about 3% of every society in recorded history. Any laws the states enforce regarding SSM won´t make one more of less gay person or gay couple.

If you´re worried about traditional marriage, most of recorded history (including the Old Testament) included polygamy. First Kings 11:1-3 indicates that King Solomon had 700 hundred wives and 300 hundred concubines. He was considered wise.

If you advocate for liberty and limited government, this issue can never be used by the statists and Socialists to divide and defeat patriotic, Constitutional conservatives and little "r" republicans.

The biggest issue with traditional marriage is the lack of two-parent parenting in the black community. Some idiot Kardashian has a $10M wedding that lasts 77 days, nearly half of "church" weddings end in divorce, and you´re worried about a tiny fraction of society. Go figure.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 6 - Posted by: Rinktum, 3/17/2013 8:32:53 AM     (No. 9229091)

I am against gay marriage for religious reasons. The Bible is clear that one man and one woman coming together as one is the definition of marriage and society has adopted this definition for centuries. It is troubling to think that man now wants to change this definition which would leave it open to further tweaking in the future. Once the government can define what is essentially a religious sacrament, there is no regress for those of us who do not accept it. It will be "law" and therefore, all will be forced to obey. Two questions beg to be asked: (1) If gays were given the exact same standing legally as a married couple under another name, would that be acceptable or is their goal not actually equality under the law, but enforcement of society to sacrifice their religious beliefs on the altar of tolerance. (2) What other religious sacraments can the government redefine.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 7 - Posted by: RCFlyer98, 3/17/2013 8:35:19 AM     (No. 9229096)

I´m sure you remember the saying, once the camel has his nose in the tent, it will not be long until the whole camel is inside? #4, you are spot on!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


   

 

  


 
Reply 8 - Posted by: 4Justice, 3/17/2013 8:43:42 AM     (No. 9229104)

#2, there is no such word as "homosexual" in the Bible. That is a recent interpretation.

Why is one sin any worse than another? How many heterosexuals engage in sodomy & oral sex? Many more than there are homosexuals in the world. And most takes place among married couples too! But it doesn´t matter. The Bible is a good book but it was still written by men--true, inspired by God, but still fallible men writing for a different time. How many of you cover your heads when in the house of the Lord? How many of you eat shellfish and pork?--also an abomination in Leviticus. To me, the most important words from God are the 10 Commandments, which everyone breaks. They´re the only words that can truly be attributed to God, himself. While the Bible is still great, it was compiled, edited & parts chosen as they saw fit to ensure consistency by the Universal Church. Ok, the slings & arrows are coming. But I can´t sit by & watch people malign others as if their sin was somehow "worse" than any other "sin".

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 9 - Posted by: 4Justice, 3/17/2013 8:47:51 AM     (No. 9229110)

#5, thank you!!!!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 10 - Posted by: Romochick, 3/17/2013 8:56:21 AM     (No. 9229120)



  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 11 - Posted by: Liberal like Jefferson, 3/17/2013 9:05:27 AM     (No. 9229136)

Joseph Smith was also really good at interpreting God´s word in the 19th century, and he decided God wanted him and his key followers to have multiple sex partners via religious "marriage". Just ask the last GOP candidate for POTUS about his great-grandfather Miles Park Romney and why he moved to Mexico. Hint: it was to avoid one of the US government´s early attempts to define and reward/punish religious relationships.

I am far less concerned about what polygamysts do and whom they marry than I am about their abuse of male off-spring and their exloitation of government benefit programs (me, the taxpayer) to pay for their lifestyle choices.

Choose your battles wisely. Tossing around Bible quotes doesn´t help our cause. The Bible is conflicted on the "traditional" marriage issue to say the least.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 12 - Posted by: Romochick, 3/17/2013 9:11:59 AM     (No. 9229143)

Thank you #5, #8 and #11!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


   

 

B-G1


 
Reply 13 - Posted by: Liberal like Jefferson, 3/17/2013 9:32:22 AM     (No. 9229174)

....and while we are discussing this, ask yourself this: how did Solomon afford all those 1000 babes and build a huge temple? On the backs of the Israelite taxpayers and slaves a well as military conquests.

Do you think Solomon´s people would have voted to pay taxes to support his astronomical number of sexual play toys? To be at war constantly putting your life on the line so he could live in such style?

We don´t have Earthly kings in our Constitution.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 14 - Posted by: LZK, 3/17/2013 9:33:09 AM     (No. 9229177)

I don´t need the supremes to rule on this "same-sex" thingy......

Since the supremes have given up their moral high ground in favor of "popular political" rulings -- I´ve given them no credibility...

God´s law rules in my house and my Pope Francis speaks for me and mine...

There is NO such thing as "same-sex" marriage. So go ahead and have your civil unions as you wish....

Your business is NOT with the supremes -- but -- someday with God when you stand before him.... It is NOT my business. It is between you and God....

LZK

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 15 - Posted by: Time4AR2, 3/17/2013 9:49:57 AM     (No. 9229205)

If Bible quotes O-fend, how about logic?

1. Marriage existed before governments.
2. Religion existed before governments.
3. Human societies for millennia severely discouraged homosexual behavior.
4. Governments glommed onto marriage to control behaviors.
5. Marriage is a societal construct for the production and welfare of children.
6. Natural Law indicates that homosexual behavior does not promote procreation.
7. No procreation, no more humans.
8. ´Gay marriage´ is a perverse new social construct born of economic greed to cash in on the constructs in societal law that benefit married couples.

Resultantly, marriage is a religious institution, existing for the benefit of children, and ´gay marriage´ is an oxymoron and has no place in a society that values its children.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 16 - Posted by: jorgecito, 3/17/2013 9:54:01 AM     (No. 9229217)

#1 is right. "Science" has nothing to do with this matter.

What it´s really about is this:

1. Whether we must be forced to capitulate to a tiny group demanding that we change the very meaning of the word, "marriage."

2. And then, whether that tiny group may impose its radical redefinition on the entire nation, forcing us all to recognize the absurd and oxymoronic concept of "gay marriage" as the new "law of the land."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 17 - Posted by: uponthecouch, 3/17/2013 9:54:51 AM     (No. 9229219)

Like #5 said, it is the government funding and tax incentives that ought to be correct. I don´t care what people do in private, if they have ´ministers´ who pronounce them ´married´ I am find with that as long as they don´t therefor get a tax break or other funds.

It is gay adoption that bothers me, but apparently I am too late to protest that, it already appears to be a ´right´.

The only way to reduce this is education and you can see how successful that is. Have I mentioned (and I have) that I am opposed to ALL government funding of education at all levels?

What we really want is not to encourage behavior that is damaging to children: adults are free to do damage to each other.

Read all about it: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


   

 

R_DBL_B
  


 
Reply 18 - Posted by: supersid, 3/17/2013 9:57:17 AM     (No. 9229221)

We are a constitutional republic with a religiously diverse population. In this context religious belief is something consenting adults engage in, in their homes and churches.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 19 - Posted by: HisHandmaiden, 3/17/2013 9:59:16 AM     (No. 9229224)

Sorry, folks... The Bible is not conflicted or unclear about marriage.

It has an Old Testament and a New Testament for a reason.

Suggest you read it cover to cover... then get back to us who do believe it is God-breathed and a beautiful Love Story... His inerrant, infallible Word.
On which I put my life ... and death.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 20 - Posted by: Liberal like Jefferson, 3/17/2013 10:11:36 AM     (No. 9229236)

#15 - your points #3 and #7 are laughable. One presumes that for "millenia", homosexual relationships have been discouraged by "governments". Most governments through those millena have been monarchies and/or dictatorships. Read about the Greeks and Romans and their approach to homosexuality.

I can guarantee you the Muslim world discourages homosexuality, however. They use their religious teachings to even murder homosexuals.

#7 presumes that simply acceting a gay relationship means the entire society "goes gay", and we have no more kids. Highly unlikely. Thoughout recorded history, the gay population makes up about 3% of all socieies.

Nothing makes me look at another man in the gym locker room and think, "Wow, I gotta get me some of THAT!" My wife prefers me and admiring other males to women as well.

As another poster astutely pointed out, as a constitutional republic with diverse religious traditions and practices, government cannot redefine your religious view of what is and isn´t "marriage". It can only try to control with tax and benefits what punishments and rewards it hands on on various behaviors - like extra taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.

In the state where I live, it is illegal for me to buy alchol before noon today (Sunday)and it´s illegal to go hunting. The church didn´t want competition, so they pressured government to pass laws to provide them a supposed monopoly on my time this morning.


  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 21 - Posted by: Freeloader, 3/17/2013 10:14:32 AM     (No. 9229241)

Professor Will is well educated, an ABC television "celebrity" and esteemed columnist for The Washington Post.

That said, it certainly doesn´t take a Ph.D from Princeton University to realize acts of sodomy have no correlation to "science."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 22 - Posted by: Belle, 3/17/2013 10:16:53 AM     (No. 9229244)

It is my hope conservatives come up with a simple way to support gay people and recognize there are many views on it. The media makes this a distraction from bigger issues. The gays I´ve known are kind, wonderful, hard working taxpayers who just want acceptance to live their lives without being labeled freaks. I don´t want to be associated with a party who is unkind to them but I can´t go to the liberal side. I´m fiscally conservative and socially - if it´s not illegal it´s none of my business. What party is most like that? Libertarian? That´s imperfect too.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


   

 



 
Reply 23 - Posted by: Republic Can, 3/17/2013 11:04:45 AM     (No. 9229312)

If you leftoids think that traditional marriage is about shackin-up I got news for you.

Marriage=progeny, since time immemorial.

No progeny=no more people period.

The antics of Brokeback Mountain should have NO influence on the people of any civilisation who are engaged in the procreation of our species. Those people deserve support for populating our planet. Thats why we normally agree that tax breaks for raising children is a good and sound concept. If you don´t want the awesome responsibilty and joy of raising children, fine; do what you want. JUST LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE. The fact that this concept is ignored by some people to justify their weirdness just proves their selfishness and short-sightedness.

Survival is a merit-based activity. There are no trophies for second place. Breed or die.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 24 - Posted by: mickturn, 3/17/2013 11:10:04 AM     (No. 9229320)

There is NO science to the fact that man/man or woman/woman can´t naturally have children so there is NO marriage, it is a sham.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 25 - Posted by: Arby, 3/17/2013 11:18:43 AM     (No. 9229338)

But of course this isn´t about law or social science or the welfare of the children. It´s about what might or might not gratify the adults involved. Gratification and choice have become the summum bonum. Thou shalt not deny the narcissistic self-indulgent their pleasures and thou shalt not hurt their feelings.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 26 - Posted by: EQKimball, 3/17/2013 11:27:03 AM     (No. 9229359)

Historically, "marriage" has been the union of opposites. Changing the word to mean any union deprives the historic arrangement of a unique term to describe it. A "pair" of shoes means a left shoe and a right shoe.
A "pie" means a crust and filling. A "suit" means a jacket and pants. If we change those terms to include two right shoes, two scoops of filling, two jackets, we would need to come up with new words to describe a combination of left and right shoes, crust and filling and pants and jacket. And that is the whole point. By redefining marriage society says that the historic union is neither special nor unique, deserving of its own term. That is why it is said that this movement is "an assault on traditional marriage."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 27 - Posted by: Liberal like Jefferson, 3/17/2013 11:31:52 AM     (No. 9229370)

#26 - gratifition and choice are problems?

Yeah,God forbid we encourage any of that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness garbage around here!

s/off

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 28 - Posted by: kate318, 3/17/2013 11:32:02 AM     (No. 9229371)

My, my, my. Lot´s of pontificating bombast in this thread. Guess a little talk of gay marriage will do that to people. What I don´t understand is, if we all agree that gays make up about 3% of the population, why are we being held hostage to the demands of such a small group of people? I believe the focus here is misplaced. It´s not why gays should not be allowed to be married, but why shouldn´t society promote and nuture an institution devoted to the continuation of the species? I have no problem with civil unions. In fact, I think that if a heterosexual couple has no intention of having children, they have no business getting married. Let them live in civil union. We could offer contracts: one year, two, five, etc. All legalities are covered with shared benefits, etc., but the definition of marriage would then remain intact, and it´s purpose unchanged. And, mark my words, if gay marriage is completely accepted by society, and legal in all 57 states, the next demand will be for science to figure out a way for gays to reproduce. Before you ask me if I´m joking, remember this: the slippery slope may be a supposed example of uncritical thinking, but when it comes to liberalism, it is always fulfilled. Always.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 29 - Posted by: nigella, 3/17/2013 11:36:59 AM     (No. 9229386)

#15, and 16 speak for me...

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 30 - Posted by: chumley, 3/17/2013 11:41:32 AM     (No. 9229398)

#22 says it very well. I do understand what the religious posters are saying, but our law does not come from the Bible. It comes from the Constitution. The federal government has no authority to do anything that is not specifically enumerated there. I have seen nothing about marriage in any interpretation, no matter how twisted. Therefore, it is none of the government´s business, federal or state.
It is the business of the individuals involved and the churches that may want to (or not want to) perform the ceremonies or recognize the union.
If it is wrong for libs to force their policies on people who object, why is it ok for us to force our beliefs on others? Either we cherish freedom or we dont.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 31 - Posted by: Gagolfer, 3/17/2013 11:54:34 AM     (No. 9229419)

Should there therefore be a timeline in which a married heterosexual couple will have to produce children or their marriage will be considered null and void? Will they automatically then be in a civil union or will they have to apply for a civil contract? Will a couple have to declare they intend to have children before they can marry and if they end up not being able to have children their marriage is voided?

So many complications to running everyone´s personal lives. Maybe we should just mind our own business?

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 32 - Posted by: Belle, 3/17/2013 12:04:35 PM     (No. 9229431)

While historically gays makeup 3% of the population they touch lives of many more(parents, siblings, co-workers etc.) I think there should be a big tent for a political party who wants to focus on the Constitution. Otherwise should there be political parties where everyone agrees on social issues? Good luck with winning elections. This thread shows that reasonable people can disagree but most of us agree on the Constitution.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 33 - Posted by: columba, 3/17/2013 12:12:23 PM     (No. 9229445)

The Pope has it right: Same Sex marriage is straight from the Father of Lies in his effort to destroy marriage and us.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 34 - Posted by: M Stuart, 3/17/2013 12:15:22 PM     (No. 9229452)

Since the government loves to meddle so much, why not eliminate the marriage tax and make it advantageous to marry? Instead it now costs people, and you even see the elderly who should be examples for young people shacking up.

Unmarried parents are taking the easy way. No marriage=more money, benefits, easy dissolution. They can´t afford to get off the gravy train of food stamps, earned income credit, and higher standard deductions. So we pay.

When did it become MY job to pay for the procreation of others??

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 35 - Posted by: kate318, 3/17/2013 12:23:32 PM     (No. 9229464)

Good questions, #32, but the pain of wanting children and not being able to conceive is its own special anguish. I wouldn´t require those people to do anything else. Besides, they may choose to adopt.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 36 - Posted by: Bluefindad, 3/17/2013 12:45:03 PM     (No. 9229484)

It´s amazing that there are so many here who don´t get it. Only the useful idiots think that this is a campaign to bring fairness and equality for people to commit and love one another.

The real purpose is ´fundamental transformation´. Leftists have always understood that words have a greater power to communicate and encapsulate broad concepts than any other social mechanism. Marriage is a fundamental, universally understood concept. From Marx onward, it has stood as a bullwark against true social transformation.

When you redefine a word that stands for a fundamental concept, you destroy it´s meaning and render the concept unexpressible in clear, unambiguous terms.

This battle is clearly a out the never ending war to destroy the burgoise.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 37 - Posted by: joew9, 3/17/2013 1:21:17 PM     (No. 9229531)

Seems like Will takes a strong position to bash the conservatives and only a very small effort against the liberals. The conservatives worst enemies are those that purport to be conservatives but frequently join the other side in their attempt to show how fair and open minded they are.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 38 - Posted by: absalom, 3/17/2013 1:46:07 PM     (No. 9229554)

#15 makes the case for marriage, a bedrock institution of civilization, simply. Since the dawn of man, it was a societal impulse driven by the need to socialize children and voluntarily self regulate sexual activity. Its religious trappings came millennia later and are unneeded to make a self evident case discouraging homosexuality. All this noise is indicative of the insidious effect of moral relativism on modern culture which insists that freedom is the paramount attribute. This canard is advanced by libertarian cranks who insist that the self transcends the soul and therefore, the universe rotates around the individual. We´d still be in caves if that mentality prevailed through history.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 39 - Posted by: msjena, 3/17/2013 2:08:47 PM     (No. 9229568)

#8 and others, the New Testament does condemn same sex relationships--see Paul´s letter to the Romans. Leviticus was written for the Jews at that time. It doesn´t apply now that salvation has been made available to all: "first to the Jew, then to the Greek (ie, Gentile)."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    3 persons like this.


Reply 40 - Posted by: Chip86, 3/17/2013 2:15:02 PM     (No. 9229574)

Wow, 40 comments. At national review they had over 1000 on the very subject.


Strange how this site has not upgraded to Discuss or other such software. It feels so 2000.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 41 - Posted by: lostinmassachusetts, 3/17/2013 2:17:28 PM     (No. 9229577)

#20, before boasting that your liberal views on homosexuality comport with Thomas Jefferson´s, I think you should first look into Jefferson´s actually said about homosexual behavior. He believed it was a criminal offense, akin to rape, punishable by castration.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 42 - Posted by: woofwoofwoof, 3/17/2013 2:51:19 PM     (No. 9229627)

There is no science at all, but there are shaky libtard social scientists.

Even the best science needs to be understood and interpreted, almost nobody says that in any way shape or form that science ever directly dictates law. A few wackos might, but generally they are lying when they say so, or writing the "science" backwards from the results they want to find. That´s not really science, in case that´s not clear to you.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    9 persons like this.


Reply 43 - Posted by: AutumnJoy, 3/17/2013 4:01:54 PM     (No. 9229706)

All this bickering!

I have a cartoon on my refridgerator that shows a person at the pearly gates and St. Peter looking through The Book Of Life. The caption reads "Ah. Here you are. On the S*** List". Interpret it as you may. Only The Big Guy gets to judge.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 44 - Posted by: Timber Queen, 3/17/2013 4:44:08 PM     (No. 9229749)

#37 Thank you for seeing through the "progressive" BS that at its core is to "fundamentally transform" society. Being against "gay marriage" does not translate to being against homosexuals or lesbians. Some are fine people, some are stinkers; just like all of humanity.

The purpose of marriage in society is providing a stable home for the rearing of children. Even if a couple cannot conceive or cannot adopt, their stable marriage offers an example as they become beloved aunts and uncles fulfilling the extended family role of a stable environment for children.

Since the 19060’s marriage has been under attack. It began with “no fault” divorce when the “progressives” claimed that children would be better off if parents in a “bad marriage” split up. The ravages of divorce on generations of children led to “shacking up”, which led to casual “hooking up” and the promiscuity that has had deleterious effects upon our society as a whole. Our entertainment media purposely portrays traditional marriage as lame and ineffectual while it trumpets deviant behavior. Yet, the argument now put forth by many is that because married people divorce easily, have adulterous affairs, and engage in questionable sexual practices that “gay marriage” is OK. It takes the consequences of the “war on marriage” as proof that marriage is wanting. Just like the “progressives” planned.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 45 - Posted by: Timber Queen, 3/17/2013 4:44:43 PM     (No. 9229751)

If homosexuals and lesbians wish the legal and tax benefits of a “union”, I’m fine with a civil union, but don’t call it a marriage. In my faith, Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament between the man, the woman and God. Marriage requires that it be unitive and complementary. If “gay marriage” becomes a right with “equal protection under the law”, will the law compel Catholic and other Christian faiths to marry same-sex couples? “Gay marriage” is ultimately an attack on religious freedom, as is the mandate to provide contraception, abortion inducing drugs, and elective sterilization. This all comes from the Father of Lies, just as Pope Frances has proclaimed. Do not be fooled by the “feel good” language of the “progressive” Marxists.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 46 - Posted by: cat2, 3/17/2013 4:52:06 PM     (No. 9229769)

Re: the format of this site . . . I am very happy with this format, and find it far superior to sites that indent responses to posts. And I especially like the fact that this site puts the oldest comments at the top of the page. Fie on the sites that make you go to the end and read backward if you wish to follow the drift of the comments.

Thank you to the Lucianne team for all the years that we have enjoyed and learned from our fellow Ldotters. You make it easy.



  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 47 - Posted by: msjena, 3/17/2013 4:54:16 PM     (No. 9229772)

I have to laugh at those who point to the Ancient Greeks and Romans and their tolerance of homosexuality. Where are those societies today? Extinct. Rome was particularly depraved in terms of libertine sexual behavior, cruelty and disregard for human life. It was into this world that Jesus appeared. How fitting, and how needed.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 48 - Posted by: so_free_me, 3/17/2013 5:08:09 PM     (No. 9229795)

Dear #8 and others like you: the Bible is God´s word, i.e. inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is not suspect because it was written by men who lived in historical times. God is not limited by time or culture, and his word holds true today. And there is NO way you can study the word and believe that God wants men to have sex with men or women with women. (Nor did God ever hold up polygamy as the ideal.) You´re desperately trying to justify sin.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 49 - Posted by: ArtieC, 3/17/2013 5:38:32 PM     (No. 9229846)

Something people forget and it would be well to remember : the Levitical law was given to Jews, not Gentiles. We should be quoting the new testament admonition against homosexuality.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 50 - Posted by: Belle, 3/17/2013 5:49:17 PM     (No. 9229874)

There are alot of good points and views on this. My question is how does this relate to politics? For those so sure about society collapsing if gays marry - I get it. Who are you going to vote for? When you alienate a segment of people who would vote like you -is that going to save society? Look what we´re stuck with. For those like me that don´t want to be rude and hurtful to good people and think it´s not really my business as long as they´re law abiding - who can I vote for? I think there´s a great opportunity for a fiscally conservative - socially neutral political party. I don´t want to vote on religion. My views are my own through my life experience as are yours. We all get one vote. I respect your views and hope you respect that I´m entititled to my opinion too.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 51 - Posted by: Patchy Groundfog, 3/17/2013 6:05:58 PM     (No. 9229903)

I find it interesting that leftists believe absolutely in evolution but also believe that the human race will continue on forever once we start calling two men or two women ´married.´

Just another one of their glaring contradictions.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 52 - Posted by: ladycatnip, 3/17/2013 6:41:04 PM     (No. 9229970)

This is all a red herring - the slippery slope here is if gay marriage is made public policy or the law of the land, then churches stand to lose their non-profit status if they preach against it. Five, ten years down the line, our churches will have to decide to compromise biblical principles versus their tax exempt status - which they depend upon to help keep their doors open. As our economy worsens under socialism, the less people give. This may mean some churches will be forced to shut their doors because they will be taxed out of existence.

This is an assault on our freedom of religion, not about giving gays equal rights. Why don´t they create civil unions that would give them the same benefits as marriage, but keep it out of the realm of the church. Marriage is a sacrament, civil unions are not.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 53 - Posted by: Harlowe, 3/17/2013 8:24:11 PM     (No. 9230112)

#51 – It would be well to remember that the Old Testament is not irrelevant, it is the Law; the New Testament is the Gospel.

Old Testament: Genesis 19:5, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 7:20, Leviticus 7:21, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 22:5. Deuteronomy 23:18, Judges 19:22-23

New Testament: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 2 Peter 6-11, Jude 6-8, Revelation 21: 5-8, Revelation 22:14-15

(Note: Chapter 22 is the last chapter in Revelation and it contains 21 verses; in Verse 15 it is again written that the sexually immoral are among those who will not go through the gates into the city.)

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 54 - Posted by: GoodGrief, 3/17/2013 9:39:37 PM     (No. 9230184)

I now pronounce you "Wan and Mife." There, that´s solved.

Oh wait, "Mife and Wan."

Oh shoot, it just won´t work.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 55 - Posted by: Harlowe, 3/17/2013 10:31:57 PM     (No. 9230224)

#40 – The admonition and condemnation of homosexuality in Scripture is as relevant now as it was then and applies to all time, for Jews and Gentiles. The Ten Commandments were given to the Jews, but apply to Gentiles as well; all people are to live by the Law and the Gospel. It is the means of grace, forgiveness, that has changed; no longer through animal sacrifices, but through the blood of Jesus, the Messiah.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 56 - Posted by: tomatonut, 3/17/2013 11:38:25 PM     (No. 9230279)

#5 (aka #20)makes absurd arguments about homosexuality and society. Homosexuality is either positive, negative, or neutral in its effects on homosexuals and the rest of society. That is, positive, negative, or neutral in its physical, social, and moral effects. Only someone who can convincingly argue that the effects are positive or neutral can make a case for same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, the teaching of homosexual sexual practices, and so on. The evidence that homosexuality (and sorry, but only about 1.5% of any population is homosexual)is negative is overwhelming.

And yet militant homosexuals keep pushing their perversion on the rest of us--especially on children in the public schools, usually under the pretext of protecting some youngsters from harm.

I find it fascinating that those who were once considered to be suffering a psychological ailment now have convinced many that it is the rest of us, the "homophobes," who are ill. I also find it fascinating that militant homosexuals practically foam at the mouth if you mention the fact that they have never condemned NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or if you remind them of the landmark work of a famous American psychologist who said that he had never met a homosexual male who had had a good relationship with his father.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    10 persons like this.


Reply 57 - Posted by: get er done, 3/17/2013 11:51:47 PM     (No. 9230289)

The current push by Obama and other liberals as advocates of same sex marriage is another chorus of "It´s all about ME."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    5 persons like this.


Reply 58 - Posted by: Hammock, 3/18/2013 12:43:15 AM     (No. 9230318)

I liked the (former?) site rule of only one, (perhaps with apologies two) post per thread. If one has put up four long-winded posts on the same thread it appears selfish to me.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 59 - Posted by: msjena, 3/18/2013 1:07:27 AM     (No. 9230331)

There is reference in the New Testament to keeping the commandments and "the law." But it is clear that the specifically Jewish law--such as circumcision--was rejected by the apostles as something that applied to Gentiles. Peter even had a dream that told him to eat whatever he wanted. Leviticus sets out things that specifically applied to Jews at that time--things that set them apart as a people. Those rules don´t apply anymore since Christ has come for all mankind--in Galatians it says, there is no Jew or Greek; slave or free; male or female-all one in Christ. Surely, no one wants to kill homosexuals because Leviticus commands it and no one claims that the Bible forbids Christians from eating shellfish or pork.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 60 - Posted by: 4Justice, 3/18/2013 1:16:10 AM     (No. 9230336)

#50, several different "books" were written by different men (inspired by God) over several different time periods. Like it or not, they were still men who are not infallible and who have their own personal prejudices as all people do. Some books were written shortly after things happened and others were written hundreds of years later. There were also sections removed by the Universal Church just as some books were chosen and others (that may have given a conflicting message) were left out on purpose.
You can claim what you want about the choices made as being the proper choices. But remember, the church, like most other political entities was interested in amassing power and wealth...even back then. Why do you think they tried to destroy the gnostics?

And I did not say that homosexuality was not addressed in the New Testament at all...I said the actual word "homosexual" was not used. That is a recent interpretation.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    4 persons like this.


Reply 61 - Posted by: 4Justice, 3/18/2013 1:25:35 AM     (No. 9230342)

By the way, the biggest mistake that conservatives make is using the word "ban". If you don´t want the state to recognize a marriage (which can be performed by any church that wishes to), then say that. Say it should not be legally recognized by the state. But to say you are for "banning" same sex marriage, you are essentially telling people they have no freedom of religion. And then you end up sounding like a close-minded bigot control-freak who doesn´t believe in freedom. Let people marry as they see fit since it happens anyway. Just vote to not recognize it. Yes, there is a leftist agenda, but they grabbed onto a real concern that some people feel should be addressed. They want recognition of the marriage so they can take care of their loved one if he/she gets sick. They don´t want to go through the extra requirement of having to create a legal contract or living trust to have the same benefits (and penalties) as a heterosexual married couple.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 62 - Posted by: LaVallette, 3/18/2013 2:50:49 AM     (No. 9230378)

When science and the Laws of Physics are able to prove that two nuts on their own or two screws on their own can fulfil the functions of a bolt in the way only ONE nut and ONE screw can, only then can the validity of gay marriage be open for consideration. In the meantime no state legislation has the right to legislate what is against the fundamental natural designs and order, the laws of anatomy and of biology, It offends against Science itself which has a nasty habit of kicking back hard when it is offended, be it in the short or long term.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.


Reply 63 - Posted by: Harlowe, 3/18/2013 3:06:25 PM     (No. 9231431)

#61 –Leviticus was written to teach the priests how to act and teach the people; to care for people who are in sin. Romans is purest gospel and briefly sums up Christian and evangelical doctrine while showing the light and power of the Old Testament. Timothy wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Leviticus is among “ALL Scripture” and, therefore, the teaching, admonition, and condemnation are for all time; the ultimate judgment remains the same—then with banishment or execution, now on Judgment Day.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.



Post Reply   Close thread 727458




Below, you will find ...

Most Recent Articles posted by "StormCnter"

and

Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)




Most Recent Articles posted by "StormCnter"



Advice to Democrats: Don´t say ´recovery´
Associated Press, by David Espo    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/18/2014 10:15:20 AM     Post Reply
WASHINGTON - Election-year memo to Democratic candidates: Don´t talk about the economic recovery. It´s a political loser. So say Democratic strategists in a blunt declaration that such talk skips over "how much trouble people are in, and doesn´t convince them that policymakers really understand or are even focusing on the problems they continue to face." In addition, Stan Greenberg, James Carville and others wrote that in head-to-head polling tests the mere mention of the word "recovery" is trumped by a Republican assertion that the Obama administration has had six years to get the economy moving and its policies haven´t worked. Coincidentally or not,

Iran Gets an Unlikely Visitor, an American
Plane, but No One Seems to Know Why
New York Times, by Michael Corkery*    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/18/2014 10:12:11 AM     Post Reply
President Obama has warned that Iran is not open for business, even as the United States has loosened some of its punishing economic sanctions as part of an interim nuclear pact. Yet, on Tuesday morning, Iran had an unlikely visitor: a plane, owned by the Bank of Utah, a community bank in Ogden that has 13 branches throughout the state. Bearing a small American flag on its tail, the aircraft was parked in a highly visible section of Mehrabad Airport in Tehran. But from there, the story surrounding the plane, and why it was in Iran — where all but a few

Cost of Treatment May Influence Doctors
New York Times, by Andrew Pollack    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/18/2014 10:07:22 AM     Post Reply
Saying they can no longer ignore the rising prices of health care, some of the most influential medical groups in the nation are recommending that doctors weigh the costs, not just the effectiveness of treatments, as they make decisions about patient care. The shift, little noticed outside the medical establishment but already controversial inside it, suggests that doctors are starting to redefine their roles, from being concerned exclusively about individual patients to exerting influence on how health care dollars are spent. “We understand that we doctors should be and are stewards of the larger society as well as of the patient in

The Bigger They Are
Washington Free Beacon, by Matthew Continetti    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/18/2014 5:11:40 AM     Post Reply
Hillary Clinton may end up deciding she wants to spend the 935 days until election 2016 making corporate speeches and spoiling her grandchild. Recent events have exposed weaknesses in Clinton’s supposedly impregnable armor, gaps through which a Democratic or Republican challenger could damage, perhaps even defeat her. The bad headlines to which she has been subjected are enough to make anyone—anyone who isn’t a Clinton—think twice about running for president. Look at the polls. This week’s Fox News poll has Clinton’s favorable rating at its lowest point in six years. She is at 49 percent favorable, 45 percent unfavorable—similar to her

Obama offers new insults,
then laments gridlock
Daily Caller, by Neil Munro    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/18/2014 5:09:52 AM     Post Reply
President Barack Obama used his Thursday press conference to diagnose Republicans as fear-mongering, spiteful, obstinate, petulant and obstructive, as he again declared mission-accomplished in his effort to put the nation’s health-care under government control. “I recognize that their party is going through the stages of grief — anger and denial and all that stuff — and we’re not at acceptance yet,” Obama told reporters, where he announced that his Obamacare network had claimed 8 million subscribers. Obama coupled his passive-voice diatribe with his more-in-sorrow-than-anger promise that he “would much prefer a constructive conversation with the Republicans about how do we get some

´Deeply Ashamed´ Ferry Captain
Among First to Abandon Ship
ABC News, by Joohee Cho & Dan Good    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/18/2014 4:59:40 AM     Post Reply
The captain of a ferry that sank off the coast of South Korea Wednesday, leaving nearly 300 people missing, is under investigation as a possible criminal and was one of the first people to escape the doomed vessel, Coast Guard officials said. Lee Joon-seok, 69, left the ferry on a lifeboat 32 minutes after reporting an accident, officials said. The captain appeared on Korean television today, his face covered by a gray hoodie. “I am really sorry and deeply ashamed,” he said, as he was being questioned at the Mokpo Coast Guard Office. It´s unclear which of his actions could be considered criminal.

CBO shows it’s Paul Ryan 4,
Obama 0 on budget targeting
Washington Times, by Stephen Dinan    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/18/2014 4:54:22 AM     Post Reply
Soon after the tea party era began in Congress in 2011, President Obama and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan each released their budgets, proposing how much the government should tax and spend over the rest of the decade. Three years into that budget showdown, Mr. Ryan and his Republican colleagues are winning. Government spending has slowed, and Mr. Obama’s plans for higher taxes and higher spending have fallen by the wayside. “The discretionary spending has in fact been driven by Republicans post-2010 clamping down,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who is now president of the

Those ‘rogue’ agents
New York Post, by Editorial    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/18/2014 4:37:07 AM     Post Reply
Remember when Lois Lerner, in answering a planted question at an American Bar Association conference, admitted the IRS had targeted conservative groups but tried to pass it off as the work of rogue agents — “our line people in Cincinnati”? Today we know there were indeed federal agents involved. But they weren’t rogue, and they weren’t confined to IRS workers in Cincinnati. Thanks to a Freedom of Information request by Judicial Watch, we now have an e-mail Lerner sent to colleagues noting the Department of Justice was looking into criminal prosecutions of these tax-exempt groups. We know something else, too. These investigations

Even Hillary Clinton Isn’t Sure What
We Should Like About Hillary Clinton
PJ Media, by Stephen Kruiser    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/18/2014 4:33:53 AM     Post Reply
The first step is admitting… It was a simple question to someone accustomed to much tougher ones: What was her proudest achievement as secretary of state? But for a moment, Hillary Rodham Clinton, appearing recently before a friendly audience at a women’s forum in Manhattan, seemed flustered.(Snip)So…no definitive successes and some clear-cut failures. And that’s the generous New York Times assessment. The Democrat fantasy story about Mrs. Clinton paints her as strong and accomplished on her own. In reality, this is a woman who is professionally defined almost entirely by two men in her life, both of whom happen to have

For Obamacare, What Counts As Success?
New York Times, by Ross Douthat    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/18/2014 4:23:43 AM     Post Reply
Ezra Klein, in his new capacity as one of the impresarios behind Vox, has written a pair of attention-grabbing posts — here, and then here — defending the proposition that Obamacare has, in some sense, “won,” and that conservatives who can’t come to terms with that victory can’t come to terms with reality itself. Reading them, it struck me that this argument would benefit from laying down some specific markers for the near future, because Klein seems to move back and forth between two definitions of success. At times, as when he writes that Obamacare “has won its survival” and

What would a Mitch
McConnell-led Senate look like?
Washington Post, by Paul Kane    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/17/2014 5:08:09 PM     Post Reply
It’s no secret that Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) don’t like one another. They battle regularly over legislation and their Senate floor fights over arcane-but-important rules have become must-see entertainment for senatorial insiders. According to aides in both parties, the two leaders have not had a one-on-one sitdown to discuss legislation (or anything else) since late last year. Nowadays, all business is conducted on the phone or in brief discussions on the Senate floor. Part of that feud is political – Democrats targeted McConnell in 2008, Republicans targeted Reid in 2010, Democrats

Jews ´ordered to register and list property´
in east Ukraine city of Donetsk where pro-Russian
militants have taken over government buildings
Daily Mail [UK], by Julian Robinson    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 4/17/2014 4:55:14 PM     Post Reply
Jews have reportedly been told to ´register´ with pro-Russian forces in the east Ukrainian city of Donetsk. They were also told they would need to provide a list of property they own as well as being ordered to pay a fee or face the threat of deportation. U.S. officials in Washington say leaflets bearing the chilling order have recently appeared in the city amid pro and anti-Russian protests as tensions rise in the area. It comes after Jews leaving a synagogue in the city of Donetsk were reportedly told they had to ´register´ with Ukranians trying to make the city part of Russia.United



Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)



Has Rush Limbaugh Finally
Reached the End Of The Road?

47 replie(s)
Forbes Magazine, by Rick Ungar    Original Article
Posted By: EveningStar- 4/16/2014 7:24:05 PM     Post Reply
Like him or hate him, there is no disputing that Rush Limbaugh’s very special brand of mixing right-wing politics with his flare for entertainment has produced one of the most successful radio programs in the medium’s long history. Whatever the burning political question of the day, millions of Americans have relished the opportunity to tune into Rush’s program, knowing that he would quickly take that hot potato, throw a few gallons of verbal kerosene into the mix and elevate the matter into a five alarm fire with a just a few well-chosen words spoken in the style only Rush Limbaugh could

Michelle Obama Riverdances
Through Dublin to the Tune
of $7,921,638

40 replie(s)
Breitbart Big Peace, by Tom Fitton    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 4/17/2014 6:45:16 AM     Post Reply
When it comes to tracking the cost of Obama family vacations, there are two primary challenges. First, the Obamas are prolific jet-setters, so there are many details to track. Second, the Obama administration, clearly embarrassed by these lavish and frequent family vacations, stonewalls the release of records at every turn. But we have been relentless in pursuit of this information. Our attorneys file the lawsuits and make our case, and our investigators pour through pages of records and crunch the numbers. And the information we’ve uncovered – information that would otherwise remain under lock and key – shows that the

Kim Novak responds to post-
Oscars ridicule: ‘I was bullied.’

40 replie(s)
Washington Post, by Soroya Nadia McDonald    Original Article
Posted By: MissMolly- 4/18/2014 5:02:40 AM     Post Reply
After presenting at the Academy Awards this year, Kim Novak didn’t want to leave her house. The Hitchcock screen siren, 81, was too humiliated to venture from her home near the Rogue River in Oregon. She read the cruel posts and Internet snark about her appearance, and it was just too much. “It got to me like it gets kids and teenagers,” she told the Associated Press. The “Vertigo” actress, considered one of the great beauties in her day, posted a note on her Facebook wall Thursday, acknowledging that she’d gotten fat injections in her face and addressing her halted

Why is US Senator Harry
Reid so concerned with
a local Nevada rancher?

39 replie(s)
Fox News, by Wayne Allyn Root    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 4/16/2014 9:37:12 PM     Post Reply
I live in Las Vegas. I live and breath Nevada politics. Something is very wrong. Something smells rotten in the Nevada desert. And Senator Harry Reid’s fingerprints are all over it. I am of course referring to the Bundy Ranch siege. This was a dispute between a Nevada ranching family with rights to the land in question for 140 years and the BLM (Bureayu of Land Management). The government claims they haven’t paid grazing fees for 20 years. The result was a government assault on the ranch- including snipers with assault rifles, SUV’s, helicopters, airplanes and over 200 heavily armed troops. No

Analysis: Obama Celebrates
Eight Million ´Enrollments,´
Again Declares Debate ´Over´

38 replie(s)
Townhall, by Guy Benson    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 4/17/2014 8:56:28 PM     Post Reply
President Obama addressed the White House press corps today, announcing that with the final numbers in, Obamacare´s exchanges have attracted eight million sign-ups -- 35 percent of whom are "under the age of 35," he said. Several elements of his comments were misleading: (1) At first blush, the 35 percent stat is both significant and impressive. As recently as last month, the share of "young invincibles" signing up for plans was struggling in the 25 percent range, far short of the actuarial target of nearly 40 percent. A leap into the mid-30´s, while still shy of the goal, would constitute a major step, and would bode well for the risk pools'

Elizabeth Warren whines about coverage
of her fraudulent Indian claim

35 replie(s)
Daily Caller, by Patrick Howley    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 4/16/2014 9:54:52 PM     Post Reply
Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote in her forthcoming book that she was “hurt” and “angry” by 2012 reporting on her fraudulent claim to Native American heritage. “What really threw me, though, were the constant attacks from the other side,” Warren wrote in her book “A Fighting Chance.” “I would almost persuade myself that I was starting to get the hang of full-throttle campaigning and then — bam! Out of left field, the state Republican Party, or the Brown campaign, or some blogger, would launch a rocket at me,” Warren wrote, adding, ”I was stunned by the attacks.” This reporter (blogger?) reported extensively

The Folly Of The Bundy Ranch Rebellion
35 replie(s)
The Federalist, by Grace Olmstead    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 4/18/2014 4:21:46 AM     Post Reply
It’s the stuff of Westerns: a showdown on the desert plains, the big bad government against an underdog farmer. Though the story has only grabbed national headlines in the past several days, rancher Cliven Bundy has illegally grazed cattle on the Nevada land surrounding his farm for over 20 years. He hasn’t paid grazing fees since 1993, and refuses to renew the necessary grazing permit.(Snip)Rather than using the avenues and pathways presented to him, Bundy has staunchly declared his own law and allegiances. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work this way. If only it did—we could rebel for paying stupid taxes, refuse to

Former US president joins
opposition to Keystone XL

33 replie(s)
Houston Chronicle, by Jennifer A. Dlouhy    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 4/16/2014 10:32:12 PM     Post Reply
WASHINGTON — Former President Jimmy Carter joined fellow Nobel laureates Wednesday in opposing Keystone XL, insisting that approving the pipeline would trigger “more climate upheaval” around the globe. In an open letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, Carter and the nine other Nobel Peace Prize winners bluntly warned the leaders: “Your decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will define your climate legacy.” The missive, published as an advertisement in Politico, represents the first time Carter has taken a position on the $5.4 billion project and makes him the first former president to come

Fox News Poll: Many voters say Obama lies
to the country on important matters

30 replie(s)
Fox News, by Dana Blanton    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 4/16/2014 7:39:27 PM     Post Reply
About six in ten American voters think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters some or most of the time, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday. Thirty-seven percent think Obama lies “most of the time,” while another 24 percent say he lies “some of the time.” Twenty percent of voters say “only now and then” and 15 percent “never.” Click here for the poll results. President Obama has been accused by political opponents and media fact-checkers alike of telling falsehoods. Frequently cited: His repeated claim that under Obamacare “If you like your plan, you can keep

Wendy Davis will undergo neck surgery
28 replie(s)
Star-Telegram [Fort Worth TX], by Anna M. Tinsley    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 4/16/2014 4:02:34 PM     Post Reply
FORT WORTH — Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis will undergo neck surgery today, her campaign said Tuesday. “After experiencing shoulder and right arm pain in recent weeks, Sen. Davis will have a routine surgical procedure to remove bone spurs and degenerative discs that are creating compression on the nerves in her neck,” campaign spokesman Zac Petkanas said in a statement Tuesday. “This is a common issue experienced by runners and endurance athletes,” he said. Davis, of Fort Worth, will undergo the outpatient surgery at the Fort Worth Brain and Spine Institute. Dr. Thomas Ellis will perform the

Rev. Al Sharpton’s Easter message:
Politically ‘crucified’ Obama has risen again

28 replie(s)
Washington Times, by Jessica Chasmar    Original Article
Posted By: LittleHoodedMonk- 4/16/2014 3:42:51 PM     Post Reply
With Easter soon approaching, the Rev. Al Sharpton on Wednesday drew parallels between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of President Obama’s political career. Joining the “Tom Joyner Morning Show,” Mr. Sharpton said that his message for this Easter is that “no matter what the world may do to you unfairly, no matter how you’re crucified — nailed to the cross at home, or in your personal relationships, or on the job — that you can rise if you don’t lose yourself during the hard times and the challenges.” The reverend went on to say that Christ endured so much humiliation and unearned suffering leading up to his death,

Every Media Outlet: Hillary
Grandkid the Most Consequential
Baby Since Jesus

24 replie(s)
Mediaite, by Tina Nguyen    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 4/18/2014 10:34:40 AM     Post Reply
Less than 16 hours after Chelsea Clinton announced she was pregnant, a lot of major news outlets started staring into the crystal ball of Chelsea’s womb, wondering what this currently floating zygotic multicellular being meant for the prospects of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, which is also a floating, zygotic, multicellular being. Their answer: The immaculately conceived Clinton child could mean everything. And no, it’s not just the fact that having a grandchild could be personally fulfilling to Hillary and Bill (mazel tov, by the way), or that a cute baby would be a sweet cherry on top of Hillary’s already


Post Reply   Close thread 727458





Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute | Register | Rules & FAQs
Privacy Policy | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password | Search Using Google



© 2014 Lucianne.com Media Inc.

FS