One word: RINO’s.

THE INAUGURAL SPEECH – JUST ONE OF BECKERHEAD’S LIES,
FROM LAST SATURDAY’S DIMWIT AND HERETIC RALLY,
EXPOSED TO US ALL, THANKS TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES,
SOON, WE’LL NEED A SPREAD SHEET FOR AN ACCURATE TALLY.

Poor Chris, just wishin and hopin.

RRK, you are already married. Do you still have step up on the stool in the barn for sex?

gordonbloyershow said:
Do you still have step up on the stool in the barn for sex?

Spoken like someone who has extensive experience.

Meghan Mccain a GOP ” heavy hitter ” ? Well …in a way …

Only in the bizarro world of Mediaite is Meghan McCain a “heavy-hitter” and even there, only as long as Mediaite thinks she can serve as a useful tool against conservatives.

I read this comment, on a post at Daily Caller, An independent conservative’s view of gay marriage and agree with what he wrote:

I think the solution to this is to get government out of the “marriage” business altogether. Call all pairings “civil unions” and leave marriage to the churches.

If we were to proceed down that road, would churches then be compelled to grant “marriages” to gay couples even though it is against their beliefs? I think that is the question on the minds of many people like me who want equality for all, but also do not want the state telling churches what to do.

I may sound far-fetched, but if you follow the equality argument, this is where it leads.

To which I reply:

I do agree we might run into the problem of lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform gay ceremonies. I would HOPE that with the number of liberal churches, and internet certified ministers, there would be plenty of opportunity for gay marriages, and they wouldn’t go that route. (I don’t think you are every going to force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages.)

I keep saying that the Republican party should come out in support of gay marriage. The party of family values should embrace anyone who wants to start a family. Plus, it would make the Democrats heads explode. Cheney, Mrs. Bush, Mrs. McCain, Ann Coulter? and others are already on board, it will happen, it’s just a matter of time. Republican politicians need to come out ahead of the Dems on this. People love to forget that Obama doesn’t support gay marriage.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/31/an-independent-conservatives-view-of-gay-marriage/#ixzz0yNNAAFB5

What did Tingles mean at the end when, responding to Cheney being ahead of Obama on gay marriage, Chris said, “Not with us.”. What the heck did that mean?

“I keep saying that the Republican party should come out in support of gay marriage. The party of family values should embrace anyone who wants to start a family.”

But, a better solution would be to call all pairings civil unions, as the commenter wrote, and leave marriages between couples and their church/religious/spiritual leader.

I didn’t really make that clear above… :OS

New Exclusive Intimate Audio Interview with R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director, Log Cabin Republicans
about Ken Mehlman coming OUT & more. Check it OUT @
http://voices.outtakeonline.com/2010/09/gay-republican-r-clarke-cooper-speaks.html

Eric said:
“Cooper again has the unenviable task of trying to portray the GOP’s pro-gay-marriage movement as grassroots and tries to counter Matthews’ argument by saying Beck is “fine” with marriage equality, ignoring the fact that almost certainly the majority of the attendees at the rally were not.”

Do you have something to back up this claim or are you just spewing unsubstantiated innuendo. Readers might respect you more when you back up various claims.

I for one have no problem with gays getting married, or polygamy. Adults should be able to do what they want without government interference. More and more people feel this way, and the “religious right” BS does not stick for the vast majority of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement has not jumped into the social conservative issues, and I’m happy about that. The movement focuses on Fiscal Conservatism. These people just think that the government should be able to balance a check book, and stop wasting our money.

sarainitaly said:
“I keep saying that the Republican party should come out in support of gay marriage. The party of family values should embrace anyone who wants to start a family.”

But, a better solution would be to call all pairings civil unions, as the commenter wrote, and leave marriages between couples and their church/religious/spiritual leader.

I didn’t really make that clear above… :OS

My wife and I did not get married in a church. Does that mean our “pairing” is really a civil union in your eyes?

It will happen…

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/02/cpac-poll-gay-marriage-does-not-concern-conservative-youth.html

sarainitaly said:
I read this comment, on a post at Daily Caller, An independent conservative’s view of gay marriage and agree with what he wrote: To which I reply: I do agree we might run into the problem of lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform gay ceremonies. I would HOPE that with the number of liberal churches, and internet certified ministers, there would be plenty of opportunity for gay marriages, and they wouldn’t go that route. (I don’t think you are every going to force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages.) I keep saying that the Republican party should come out in support of gay marriage. The party of family values should embrace anyone who wants to start a family. Plus, it would make the Democrats heads explode. Cheney, Mrs. Bush, Mrs. McCain, Ann Coulter? and others are already on board, it will happen, it’s just a matter of time. Republican politicians need to come out ahead of the Dems on this. People love to forget that Obama doesn’t support gay marriage. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/31/an-independent-conservatives-view-of-gay-marriage/#ixzz0yNNAAFB5 What did Tingles mean at the end when, responding to Cheney being ahead of Obama on gay marriage, Chris said, “Not with us.”. What the heck did that mean?

The problem is your approach requires setting aside the entirety of Republicanism since the onslaught of Raygunism. The heart and soul of Republicanism ceased to be fiscal conservatism when Raygun saw the poll advantages of exploting the social conservative, indeed reactionary, nature of Southern Christian Fundamentalism. Since that time Republicans have actually given us the template for the budget deficit. Raygun is indeed the father of the modern American budget deficit. And, Raygun’s Republican successors have done nothing to change the template. Poppy, a social liberal if ever there was one, in the great oold New England Republican tradition, completely caved in to the social conservatives, no doubt with great resulting angst. W, much more of the social conservative than Poppy continued this Republican tradition of fiscal abuse and neglect and Fundamentalist pandering. At least until the time of his call for greater societal inclusiveness and integration (with particular reference to Muslim Americans). Then, he ran afoul of the Republican establishment, not for his lavish deficit spending, but for his social conservative heresies.

I think what you say is well and good. I would like to see a fiscally responsible and socially liberal Republican party once again. I think you might be more than a bit naive to believe this trend is already happening or that the result is preordained. Indeed, the Tea Party’s emergence as the core of modern Republicanism would seem to suggest that the trend is in the opposite direction.

However, as I suggested, I hope you are correct in this analysis.

THE INAUGURAL SPEECH – JUST ONE OF BECKERHEAD’S LIES,
FROM LAST SATURDAY’S DIMWIT AND HERETIC RALLY,
EXPOSED TO US ALL, THANKS TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES,
SOON, WE’LL NEED A SPREAD SHEET FOR AN ACCURATE TALLY.

paulmdoro said:
My wife and I did not get married in a church. Does that mean our “pairing” is really a civil union in your eyes?

As it is currently defined, no, but it kind of is, isn’t it? Well, did you have a minister or Justice? Did you have a religious ceremony, or a legal one?

When I got married, we filed all the papers with the city, and once we were civilly *married* we had a catholic church wedding. (My husband is a good Catholic boy.) My sister in law got married on the beach in Hawaii, by a female non-denominational minister. My brother got married by a Justice, and then we flew to Africa for the ceremony, which was purely ceremonial, since they were already married (civilly joined) in the states.

But, to create equality, I would think we could call all marriages civil unions, and then if you want, have a ceremonial religious wedding (in a church or not), but one that is *recognized by God*. Regardless of what route you go, you are still *married*, it’s just the difference of whether you bring your faith/God into it, or not. Because, isn’t that the whole argument, anyway? But, if you are gay, and belong to a liberal church, or get married by some internet minister, or whatever, you can have your wedding *ordained* and with your religions blessings, or whatever.

You don’t need a church, or a religious leader to get married – but without all that, aren’t you really performing a civil contract ceremonial service? You should be able to go in, sign your papers/contracts, and then go off and have whatever type of ceremony you want to celebrate that *union*.

sarainitaly said:
As it is currently defined, no, but it kind of is, isn’t it? Well, did you have a minister or Justice? Did you have a religious ceremony, or a legal one?

When I got married, we filed all the papers with the city, and once we were civilly *married* we had a catholic church wedding. (My husband is a good Catholic boy.) My sister in law got married on the beach in Hawaii, by a female non-denominational minister. My brother got married by a Justice, and then we flew to Africa for the ceremony, which was purely ceremonial, since they were already married (civilly joined) in the states.

But, to create equality, I would think we could call all marriages civil unions, and then if you want, have a ceremonial religious wedding (in a church or not), but one that is *recognized by God*. Regardless of what route you go, you are still *married*, it’s just the difference of whether you bring your faith/God into it, or not. Because, isn’t that the whole argument, anyway? But, if you are gay, and belong to a liberal church, or get married by some internet minister, or whatever, you can have your wedding *ordained* and with your religions blessings, or whatever.

You don’t need a church, or a religious leader to get married – but without all that, aren’t you really performing a civil contract ceremonial service? You should be able to go in, sign your papers/contracts, and then go off and have whatever type of ceremony you want to celebrate that *union*.

So you are specifically tying together marriage and religion, but why? Are they synonymous? If so, have they always been?

sarainitaly said:
I read this comment, on a post at Daily Caller, An independent conservative’s view of gay marriage and agree with what he wrote: To which I reply: I do agree we might run into the problem of lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform gay ceremonies. I would HOPE that with the number of liberal churches, and internet certified ministers, there would be plenty of opportunity for gay marriages, and they wouldn’t go that route. (I don’t think you are every going to force the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages.) I keep saying that the Republican party should come out in support of gay marriage. The party of family values should embrace anyone who wants to start a family. Plus, it would make the Democrats heads explode. Cheney, Mrs. Bush, Mrs. McCain, Ann Coulter? and others are already on board, it will happen, it’s just a matter of time. Republican politicians need to come out ahead of the Dems on this. People love to forget that Obama doesn’t support gay marriage. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/31/an-independent-conservatives-view-of-gay-marriage/#ixzz0yNNAAFB5 What did Tingles mean at the end when, responding to Cheney being ahead of Obama on gay marriage, Chris said, “Not with us.”. What the heck did that mean?

This is pretty much how I’ve always felt about this, it’s all semantic quicksand keeping anything from being accomplished. Of course gay couples should have the same legal rights as hetero couples, but government, as a unit, needs to stay out of the churches, and therefore, keep whatever benefits couples get as something completely unrelated to the term “marriage” itself. I’m neither a lawyer, not a legislator, though, so don’t come after me for not knowing how to word it in an airtight way that makes all sides happy.

“…saying Beck is “fine” with marriage equality, ignoring the fact that almost certainly the majority of the attendees at the rally were not.”

So a poll was taken of the attendees? Eric, can you give us the reference so we can also look at the poll?
Thanks!

Azarkhan said:
So a poll was taken of the attendees? Eric, can you give us the reference so we can also look at the poll?

I truely dislike it when “journalists” of either side make such claims. It clearly puts a disgusting bias to the piece. Additionally, when these “journalists” make the statement “Some say that….”

If I was being interviewed I would ask them, “Ok…stop…now who said that and when?”

I am black, you are white.
I am coffee, you are milk.
We will always complement each other.
_ B l a c k w h i t e C u p i d * C 0 m _
You may have a try… ;)

kipoi

I’m not saying you can’t call it marriage – but aren’t those opposed to gay marriage opposed because of religious beliefs and the church?

Marriage traditions have evolved and held different meanings all over the world, and changed over time.

Different periods of time and different cultures have very different histories when it comes to women. Ancient Egypt, in theory, gave women equal rights, but it wasn’t always practiced. Medieval women faced dual responsibilities to religion and marriage.

Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn’t and don’t have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn’t marry because they were in love but for economic liasons.

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Joseph Campbell, in the Power of Myth, mentions that the Twelfth century troubadours were the first ones who thought of courtly love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance apparently didn’t exist until medieval times, and the troubadours.

The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, “If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void”, shows the importance of a couple’s consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of church teaching through the years.

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500′s. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn’t a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

Years later, the Puritans viewed marriage as a very blessed relationship that gave marital partners an opportunity to not only love, but also to forgive.

Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn’t changed through the ages.

Years later, the Puritans viewed marriage as a very blessed relationship that gave marital partners an opportunity to not only love, but also to forgive.

Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn’t changed through the ages.

Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.

In England and Wales, since 1837, civil marriages have been recognized as a legal alternative to church marriages under the Marriage Act of 1836. In Germany, civil marriages were recognized in 1875. This law permitted a declaration of the marriage before an official clerk of the civil administration, when both spouses affirm their will to marry, to constitute a legally recognized valid and effective marriage, and allowed an optional private clerical marriage ceremony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

What I am trying to say is separate the two issues under the governments eyes, and make civil unions available to all, and get religion out of it, which is where the opposition comes in, from what I understand. That way, gay couples can get *married* (civil unions) and then anyone who is religious, and wants to add God to the equation can do so, depending on what their church says.

Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

oops, the top blockquote is from here: http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

sarainitaly said:
I’m not saying you can’t call it marriage – but aren’t those opposed to gay marriage opposed because of religious beliefs and the church?

Marriage traditions have evolved and held different meanings all over the world, and changed over time.

True that sara.

Kitsune said:
I’m neither a lawyer, not a legislator, though, so don’t come after me for not knowing how to word it in an airtight way that makes all sides happy.

That’s my problem… I can’t say things, apparently, in a way that make sense wrt this issue. :OS

“whatever benefits couples get as something completely unrelated to the term “marriage” itself.” agreed – it should be a legal binding contract between two people.

Also, haven’t there been polls lately that show that people are more approving of civil unions than gay marriage? So, that must mean the religious factor, no? That’s why I’m saying separate the two… :OS

Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

sarainitaly said:
Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

He must be a homophobe

More Liberty said:
He must be a homophobe

Could be.

“Cooper again has the unenviable task of trying to portray the GOP’s pro-gay-marriage movement as grassroots and tries to counter Matthews’ argument by saying Beck is “fine” with marriage equality, ignoring the fact that almost certainly the majority of the attendees at the rally were not.”

What an amazingly shallow and irresponsible comment…..no integrity whatsoever

kairos said:
What an amazingly shallow and irresponsible comment

Agreed.

sarainitaly said:
Also, haven’t there been polls lately that show that people are more approving of civil unions than gay marriage? So, that must mean the religious factor, no? That’s why I’m saying separate the two… :OS Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Yes, we all understood what you were saying thousands of words ago.

By the way, intelligent people don’t cite Wikipedia.

THE INAUGURAL SPEECH – JUST ONE OF BECKERHEAD’S LIES,
FROM LAST SATURDAY’S DIMWIT AND HERETIC RALLY,
EXPOSED TO US ALL, THANKS TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES,
SOON, WE’LL NEED A SPREAD SHEET FOR AN ACCURATE TALLY.

The graceful solution is for the government to stop issuing marriage licenses and get out of the marriage business and civil union business. Government’s involvement in marriage and special civil unions is unnecessary and terriibly unfair to single people who are forced to subsidize government financial benefits going to people with government marriage licenses.

“Intelligent people don’t cite Wikipedia.”

Who says the King is an elitist, arrogant snob? Well, pretty much everyone.

Human rights organizations….are usually twisted and live in some utopian bubble

Matthews, is worthless in his analysis as usual.

wonder if they all touched tips

sarainitaly said:

To which I reply:

I keep saying that the Republican party should come out in support of gay marriage. The party of family values should embrace anyone who wants to start a family. Plus, it would make the Democrats heads explode. Cheney, Mrs. Bush, Mrs. McCain, Ann Coulter? and others are already on board, it will happen, it’s just a matter of time. Republican politicians need to come out ahead of the Dems on this. People love to forget that Obama doesn’t support gay marriage.

I don’t think it would make the Democrats heads explode. Dems would likely say, it’s about dam time to get on the right side of this issue. It’s far to late for Republicans to come out ahead of the Dems on this issue. Although Obama said he personally and religiously opposes gay marriage he also supported civil unions and said states could decide for themselves. He opposed Bush’s amendment to ban gay marriage.

More Liberty said:
He must be a homophobe

or a politician choosing his words carefully.

sarainitaly said:
“I keep saying that the Republican party should come out in support of gay marriage. The party of family values should embrace anyone who wants to start a family.”

But, a better solution would be to call all pairings civil unions, as the commenter wrote, and leave marriages between couples and their church/religious/spiritual leader.

I didn’t really make that clear above… :OS

Have to think about it more, but really, that’s not a terrible idea at all. So, define marriage as a religious union and therefore gay marriage is no longer a political issue since all people joined whether by marriage or civil union is seen as a civil union and therefore all people are given equal rights under that law. Not to mention, people who are against religion and possibly against marriage (non-gay) would have the opportunity to have their rights protected as a couple without having to “get married.” It could be a win-win and a legitimate compromise. Surprised no one else has thought to broach this idea.

Permatiltx said:
Have to think about it more, but really, that’s not a terrible idea at all. So, define marriage as a religious union and therefore gay marriage is no longer a political issue since all people joined whether by marriage or civil union is seen as a civil union and therefore all people are given equal rights under that law. Not to mention, people who are against religion and possibly against marriage (non-gay) would have the opportunity to have their rights protected as a couple without having to “get married.” It could be a win-win and a legitimate compromise. Surprised no one else has thought to broach this idea.

Oooh, great points! I think this has legs.

The GOP will be slow to formally support gay marriage because of its ties to religious conservatives (and I think this would also hold true for Dems and unions). While religious conservatives may not be as powerful within the GOP as they once were, they are a well-established and still relatively significant Republican voting bloc, and the GOP will be wary of doing something that will immediately piss off millions of their voters.

When reporters say the ‘religious right’ and the GOP are against gay marriage, they always leave out that Muslims are against it, too. Must’ve slipped their minds.

writer said:
When reporters say the ‘religious right’ and the GOP are against gay marriage, they always leave out that Muslims are against it, too. Must’ve slipped their minds.

Why would Muslims be mentioned in stories about the religious right?

So that’s their reasoning. There are no religious fundamentalist Muslims. Got it.

writer said:
So that’s their reasoning. There are no religious fundamentalist Muslims. Got it.

Oh so now it’s general stories about religious fundamentalists, not the religious right? Changing the goal posts?

I must ask, “Is there a more difficult commentator on cable news today that is more difficult to follow than Chris Matthews?”

I used to think he must be dyslexic until I discovered that it was an unwarranted attack on others with this affliction who are perfectly fine with their verbal skills.

I think by trying to inject faux energy into his program his mouth runs faster than his brain leaving him sounding like a babbling idiot at times.

paul, just saying that if you’re going to talk about groups that are against gay marriage, it seems a bit unfair to always leave the Muslims out of the discussion.

writer said:
paul, just saying that if you’re going to talk about groups that are against gay marriage, it seems a bit unfair to always leave the Muslims out of the discussion.

OK that statement I agree with.

paul, somewhere the Royal King is weeping.

All this commotion over a group of really sick people who make up less than 2.1/2% of the total population.

CAconservative said:
All this commotion over a group of really sick people who make up less than 2.1/2% of the total population.

Homophobes?

Update on the Democratic Party of Racial Bigots:

“A new website sponsored by the NAACP and left-leaning media operations is seeking videographers and bloggers who will search out “racism” and “extremism” among Tea Partiers.

Teapartytracker.org will feature tweets, interviews with people at rallies, blog entries and a picture of a t-shirt they say someone spotted at a rally that reads “Blacks own slaves in Mauitania, Sudan, Niger & Haiti.”

The site, sponsored by the NAACP, Think Progress, New Left Media and Media Matters for America, will monitor “racism and other forms of extremism within the Tea Party movement. We call on the Tea Party to repudiate extremists among their ranks and join in civil dialogue with all Americans.”
—————————————————————————————-
1. Leave your comments as to how you feel about this RACIAL INTIMIDATION site, on their site!

2. Contact ALL your friends & neighbors, and have them DEMAND your local rep. explain why the Bitterly Partisan NAACP remains TAX-EXEMPT —– and who are the people that donate to this RACIST organization!!! you think about this new site
EXPOSE the REAL RACIST groups in 2010 America! – the overwhelming majority, hailing from the Left!!!