BJean

If you want the people to vote on changing the terminology, that's a reasonable approach to consider. Clarafication of poorly defined (worded) laws can be a necessary and good thing. If you're saying that people should vote on whether or not gay people should be able to marry, with the current terminology, then that's a sham. Individuals shouldn't get to define constitutional rights for everybody else. It's a process.

Takes one to know one, Beth. That's silly of course, but your posts make me want to resort to playground tactics because they are so completely infantile. And I mean that in only the most complimentary way. :frown:

Hee, hee, hee. I'm glad that you're keeping your delightful sense of humor, Jack. I know that for me, it isn't always easy. You're right about Pelosi's senior moments of course. And I have to confess to a few of my own *she says in disgust*. And I do know that the Democratic party has slid a little - particularly in opposition to the extreme sliding that the Republican party has done. However the Democratic party has always championed the little guy, the environment, education for our children, unemployment and all those things that the Republicans seem to think will take care of themselves. At least they have "always" had those concerns since I've been aware of Democratic platforms. My parents were politically active in their community and my dad ran for public office on two occasions. He served in the state senate for a while and as a child of that household, I was exposed to a lot of politics in general. So I come by my "leanings" honestly (inherited/endoctrinated) and they are deeply ingrained in my soul. As an adult under my own steam (located in a completely different State in fact), I also became involved directly in politics from time to time and nothing ever managed to sway me in the least to the other side - that of big business interests and the "no tax, no spend" theory and the "all government is bad" viewpoint. In fact, the more exposure I've had to the people on the other side of the fence, the more convinced I became that my parents were right. As for today, I think we are suffering from the pendulum swing effect where over the past 15 years or so, the pendulum rose higher and higher on the right side. Now it is beginning to lower itself and we should probably get ready for a swing that goes too far to the left. I would be happy if someday I could actually live in a time when it settled in the middle and became as fair to everyone as possible. In the meantime, I find it very unfair that President Obama is being called a socialist and other ridiculous things because if we have ever had a president who is actually more centered, I believe it is him. He has some serious work to do to get the pendulum drifting downward again, but I do not believe that he is the socialist that some like to accuse him of being. I think he is as conservative as a Democrat can be. In fact, due to my left leanings, some of his decisions scare me a little. But I have to admit that I believe that he is not a dishonest man and that he is going to ultimately be good for this country. That is one reason why this particular thread is so annoying to me. The second being that what people here are suggesting as a solution to our fiscal problems has already been tried and shown that has never worked to the advantage of the average American. And the average American citizen is my concern. As a Democrat. You, as opposed to me, are concentrated on a line by line criticism and dissection of every move every Democrat makes. I have to look at the bigger picture because I kow that the nitty gritty can make you crazy. I am already crazy enough for the both of us. So you keep up what you're doing and I will continue to be who I am. End of story, I think.

Jack, you're a little different breed. You still have a slam dunk right wing outlook, but you at least try to appear to have given opposing viewpoints a little serious consideration. Mind you I'm not sure that you really have, but at least you are aware how of how your credibility suffers if you don't appear to be open to other ideas from time to time.

You all accuse me of going off the deep end? Yeah. Right. There's no discussion on this tread. It's like some of the threads that turn all religious. There's just no talking to some people. They know it all. They're sure of that because they have all the evidence in print. In religious cases, it's mostly the Bible they cite. With you all, it's all the right wing propaganda that is put out all over the media. You're convinced and there's no slowing down to consider a different viewpoint. You're just as pleasant to exchange ideas with as religious fanatics. Geez louise.

You want harping? I'll show you some harping.....:frown: Just kidding~ I am not harping on a religious marriage being a right, and I'm pretty sure that you get that. But not positive. So to clarify further, I'm talking (harping, eh?) about civil rights. You have a government that uses the term "marriage" to define a civil union between two eligible folks in the United States. You do get that, right? It is other folks who want to make the term "marriage" have a religious meaning under the law. Btw, there are a number of things besides taxes that are affected under our laws, based on whether a person is married or single.

Beth for the zillioneth time, our laws distinquish between married and unmarried people in this country. That's what it's about. If we do not allow gays to get married, we are discriminating against them because of the distinction that our laws make between married and unmarried people. Keep at it, you'll get it. I have confidence in you.

patty: "But, I am sure that there are many individual people who are not religious who 'know' deep down inside themselves that 2 people of the same sex having sex together is wrong, and would vote against it for that reason. The bible says that God has placed within each man the ability to understand what is sinful or not. (I believe it's our own consciences) So even if you are not deeply religious and read the bible and know for yourself what God has to say on this issue, if you dig deep down into your own soul you will have to admit to yourself when you ponder it, that it is not right to have sex with the same sex. Therefore, I believe that there are many individuals who feel it is wrong and wouldn't vote for it for that reason. (even if they can't really understand there own reasons for voting against it)" What people do not seem to understand is that according to the law, this is not a religious issue at all. It is a proposed law that seeks to ban people from being married based on the religious views of some of our citizens. It would ignore the fact that people in this country are supposed to be treated equally under the law and that all individuals have the same rights. The government is not supposed to discriminate against a minority of people siimply because they are different than the majority of the people. This simple fact falls on the deaf ears of those who want to discriminate against others based on their personal beliefs and prejudices. It is for these reasons that there should be a distinct separation of church and state in this country. I'm not saying that we should not be able to pray, I am saying that one group of people should not be able to take away another group of people's basic rights, based on religious beliefs; ANY kind of religious beliefs, not just Christianity. To ensure that our form of government will always stand the test of time, we cannot have whatever religion may be popular at any given time, to infiltrate our laws and cause harm to any group of people who do not share that particular religious belief. If we did not work hard to preserve this feature that our government documents promise us, we might eventually become the kind of country that insists that we all must worship _________________ (fill in the blank with whatever religion is in power) religion. It should be obvious to Americans that this is actually not all that different than the human rights issues that we do not condone in other countries. We even go to other countries to intervene in the oppression and human rights violations that some governments impose on their citizens. We are very aware that religious beliefs are the bases for all kinds of discrimination throughout the world. These kinds of issues are the very things that separate us from being a government like they have in Iran and Afhganistan and so many others where people are unable to vote in an open election, women are made to cover their bodies or forced to have mutilation surgery and other even more horrible atrocities. Everyone of us Americans should work very hard to ensure that all our citizens are guaranteed the freedom to live their lives as free Americans, not oppressed victims of unfair laws.

Thanks, rodriguez for the Mother's Day wishes. You deserve a huge Happy Mother's Day!! I hope you are having a beautiful day with your family - God knows they are very fortunate to have YOU!

Oh and Jack, I am sorry that you are a man without a party. That well and truly sucks Maybe one day the Republicans will find out that extreme right wing conservative tactics are not supported by the majority of good-hearted, well-intentioned Americans, and they will reorganize and regroup and give us some practical conservative political choices.

Oh I almost forgot. Happy Mother's Day to all you mo-fo's out there.

Well Jack, thanks for the generous non-wish for a Happy Mother's Day. I have been overwhelmed by the amount of right wing data and declarations of knowledgeable insight offered up by a handful of you posters. If I have allowed it to get under my skin, my sincere apologies. I just can't manage to be quite as magnanimous as you charming Republicans, especially under the circumstances in which I find myself at LBT. You obviously cannot and do not intend to understand my way of thinking about this topic (as well as several other topics) and I admit that I am totally confounded by yours. You say you would like for me to spend the time to give you links and quotes to explain why I believe the way I do on several topics. However, I do not believe that any of you are open to seriously considering opposing literature or even willing to spend your time reading it, so I certainly do not believe that it would make any sense for me to oblige. So here we are. You have your political outlook, I have mine and looks like never the twain shall meet. Interestingly, one of you suggested that I won't be happy in 15 years after going through this shake down, of sorts. But I assure you that I will happily give 15 years to the cause that this administration is undertaking in order to straighten out the mess that the people you support have put us in. And I was also asked (tongue in cheek I reckon) how we're going to pay off the debt. Well, tongue not so firmly implanted, we'll pay it off the same way we will pay off the astronomical debt of the Iraq war and the Bush administration debacle.

You peeps ever thought of broadening your horizons? I guess that is a silly question since you obviously know it all. TerriDoddle, you have no idea who I am or what I do or what socio-economic class I am considered to be in. I will tell you one thing, although it is none of your business, you are quite wrong about me. And I have a niece who works for a company that sounds much like yours. She's a little more honest about her company, its' profits, its' goals and the public relations behind the way they so nicely treat "their" landowners. (It really isn't all about how much they love them.)

rodriguez: "In the case of Euthanasia it should be the choice of the individual or the power of attorney (mother, spouse, father, whoever)... " How dare you suggest, rodriguez, that the person in pain or the loved ones of the person in pain have the right to make a decision of this kind! Gadget would rather that the government make that decision for all of us - and gadget and those who share her beliefs, are the ones who will tell the government exactly what the parameters will be for any decisions that the government will make for us. I'm so relieved that they'll be looking after MY best interests, aren't you?

Beth: "Everyone in life endures pain. I guess we should kill everyone to spare them?" Yes, everyone who has a stubbed toe should be eliminated. And I get to decide who has a real toe stub and who is faking it just because they want to die.

I hope patty that you and gadget appreciate the fact that the obvious reason that Sarah and Bristol are doing what they are doing is to further the Palin's agenda - which is political promotion and economical gain. I know it is in your own interests to support them and to praise them for endorsing what you believe, but they are just people with all the shortcomings and sins that everyone else has to deal with. Is it Beth who keeps accusing people of drinking the Obama kool-aide? Well same could be said for people drinking the Palin kool-aide.

rodriguez: Aging is a huge problem in this country. And it is only going to get worse, unless someone comes up with a sane way to take care of our aging population. It makes sense to me that if someone is terminally ill, in pain, and there is no hope for survival, if they want to end their life they should definitely be allowed to do so legally. In fact, I believe that there should be a reasonable way for people in that condition to do it painlessly and with dignity. Again, in the most strong terms that I can muster, I believe that it should be the individual's right to make a choice like that - not the government's. I can't believe that we treat animals better in this country than we treat human beings. And why do we? It's all in the name of God and because some people believe that any life is better than no life. I just think that is insane and I believe that it is terribly selfish of us to force people to suffer the way we make people suffer when they are terminally ill and in incredible pain.

Gonna Lose It: I respect the fact that you are consistent in your beliefs.

It is absolutely amazing. Just amazing. Beth there IS plenty of blame to go around, but you and others who think is is smart to keep the corporations in America strong by allowing them to do things the greedy and ultiimately dishonest way is just amazing. People are not dishonest for taking advantage of credit cards or loans that have been offered to them. They may be stupid but most of them did not have any criminal intent and they had every intention of repaying the loans and/or credit card charges. They didn't think they were going to have to declare bankruptcy and have their home go into foreclosure and lose their job, all three practically in one fell swoop. The congress may have told the banks that they needed to make more loans, but the banks made the decision to come up with the dishonest way they constructed loans and solicited people whom they knew could probably not repay those loans. Yeah, I fault them. My amazement comes from why you do not. All this talk about feeding corporations more and more profits and allowing them more and more leeway to perform in whatever sleezy capacity they choose has not done what you folks are declaring it will do. We have already tried that! It has NOT helped America. Business has been done the way you're saying is the right way by not making them pay their fair share of taxes, not making them work within the confines of the United States, by not making them answer to Congress regarding fair trade and fair practices. In fact, it is exatly what has nearly brought the United States (and the world) to its' knees. How you can keep harping on how bad it is to make them operate in such a way that will help rebuild America, is quite the stunner. No one is proposing that we put corporations out of busines, now are they? Why in the world do you continue to believe that making corporations pay their FAIR SHARE is wrong?????

I have spina bifida (diagnosed as an adult) and I undoubtedly have the fat gene. If my mom and dad had been able to abort me, then I would never have known it, would I? And I darn sure wouldn't have been living through all the pain I've had to endure. Who are you to say that they shouldn't have made the decision to spare me?

It isn't the first time she's been caught talking out of both sides of her mouth (so to speak) and it won't be the last, I'm quite sure.

I commend you for your generous, laid back attitude.

DownIn: "I do see your point and have respect for you (really I do)" gadget: "I see your point as well -- I just disagree on the definition of the word and how it applies / how people perceive it." Aw this is really a sweet love fest. But I'm gonna call a bull$$it here. Cm'on. It's all about what Palin said. Did she or didn't she say she thought about (considered) not having her Down's Syndrome baby? Why is that such a bad thing anyway? Isn't that a normal reaction to such devastating news? Who wants to bring a handicapped child into the world knowing how difficult that child's life is going to be? What loving, responsible parent wouldn't think of all of the alternatives and do some serious soul searching (and considering) before they made a decision? It's similar in a way to her daughter's going out and stumping for unmarried kids to abstain from having sex. She's speaking from her own experience and that gives her a lot of credibility. But those kids are probably also listening to the father of her baby when he says that preaching abstinence to teenagers doesn't work. He also has a whole lot of credibility. In the first statement she made, I think Sarah Palin was being honest. She did some serious soul searching and considered the alternatives. In her conflicting second statement I think she simply wanted to have all the credit for not choosing abortion. She wasn't completely truthful, but she does get a lot of credit from me for walking the walk. Meaning she campaigned vigorously against women's right to choose and she didn't make a choice that would have been contrary to her political position. Interestingly, I wonder if she still would have "considered" it, even if for only a moment, if abortion were still illegal.

Heck Jack, you post enough for the both of us. I shouldn't be expected to come up with anything because no one can top the amount of stuff you and gadget bring to us and I can't find anything that is left wing enough to rebut all the extremely conservative claptrap you all are able to track down. Congratulations, you win. I'm sure everyone is happy to have it all so clearly spelled out for us. Our president hates his country. My goodness. If anyone is paying attention, it is easy to see the source of hatefulness being peddled in this country.

Beth: "I feel no heat, BJean." Well you're obviously a very strong and thick-skinned woman, eh? plain: "Is marriage a constitutionally protected right?" As I've said before, if we were JUST talking about the civil union that we call marriage on all of our government documents, it would be one thing. But what we're talking about is that marriage causes people to be treated differently than single people under our laws. It isn't really a difficult thing to understand, is it? Changing the terminology could solve the problem, but I don't see any reason to do that. My point is that to be fair under the law, gays cannot be banned from being married as things stand right now. If people want to change the word marriage to civil union on all government documents, then that's an issue that we should discuss and perhaps vote on. If they want to simply ban gays from being "married" as the term is used within our government documents, that's another question and that's what is being debated. Banning people because they are gay and exluding them from being able to have the same rights as other people is what is patently unfair. I really don't care if it is a religious issue or not. It's just that I have observed that religious people are funding the fight and doing the negative debating. If there is an organized group of folks who are against gay marriage, who are not religious in any way, I am unaware of them. Please, enlighten me.