jackson33

The Union would be valid, just limited to the laws of their State. The License, is an implied Contract, which can be equaled by Legal Contract, down to decision making denied with out any contract, such as life support decisions or inheritance. Other common law steps in with no written contract and again implied by co habitation for a period of time. The Marriage license given by each State already has different meanings in each State and not necessarily the same. The license itself is subject to correctness of the applicant (s). Two guys, one dressed as a women can get a license and play the game for life, but that marriage could forever be invalidated, no less than falsely giving an age for future benefits or ling about your place of Birth or even not divorced from another recognized marriage. By the way, except for reasons of the Church, or any eligible person (Judge/Captain) to perform a Marriage, there is no law requiring a license from the State. However, they usually do for liable reasons or making the State resposible for fraud, waiting periods etc...

My efforts were somewhat more than voting or posting on some forum, however when lost, any effort was certainly a waste of time and some expense. The rights utilized of course are important and its those rights I was and am concerned with. I'll add, its gone to both parties in recent actions and an apparent ignorant electorate, which IMO in the end will be the losers. John; With fifty States and so much difference in many ways, the electoral system is vital. Either way you went, it was that system that worked or came very close to working, where popular count would have elected only one, from near the start...McCain, had little change to win, even said by the hard core republican base, but using a failed strategy gave it a pretty good try. Mr S; I really don't think there is anything wrong with the system, but the parties involved, even if from supporting groups of those parties. Even here its an even playing ground and both majors have played and won on that playing field. The President/VP are the ONLY two people who take office to represent the total, and you know the founders had no intention of allowing these to be by popular vote or in fact from any electorate what so ever...A possible solution would be to go back to the original system, but in the end this would only change the strategy to win or for PARTIES to concentrate on State control, already a major effort by both majors and possible building blocks for the minority parties...

Well, it is over and you won, your vote counted and mine a waste of time. I'll wish him luck, but do think your going to be sadly disappointed. Socialism itself is counter to what you claim to be your ideology. There will be more actions toward socialism than under McCain and that is not arguable. On the War, not much will change, we will be in the middle east as long as oil flow is a problem and dependency will be set by a continuing denial to industry to fill needs here. Alternatives, 20-40 years in progress are not going to fill the void in ten years or 50, the demands, recession or not, will continue to increase. When ALL taxes are raised, including Income Taxes and as SS and Medical cost increase as government expenses, this so called financial crisis will seem like a mild hand slapping. I don't think McCain could have done much better, but could have slowed Congress just a little. Since its over, I won't argue the dirty politics angle of your, but suggest McCain was probably not behind what you saw as negative campaigning.

Hope you saw 'Greta' last night or will watch tonight. Part's 1 & 2 of her post election interview with Palin.... By 2012, you MAY change you change your attitude on Obama...

Please tell me you understand, there are ONLY two viable parties, which any candidate can be elected? Then please tell be which of these people has the understanding of just what our Constitution actually means to the purpose of government...Obam, McCain or Palin? If Obama, please tell me you understand he, as a graduate of Harvard, IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, has stated that the intent of the founders was, in short socialism through the process and/or court system, with emphasis on the COURTS. Then tell me McCain or Palin, who knew or believed in the Reagan principle would not have been a better and potentially electable choice? I am sorry, what is moral to me means, only what it means to the majority. I have long realized my moral or standard for people may not be the best for future generations. As for taxes, the responsibility of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, I would not only trend Libertarian but support to no end their platform, if I felt they had a change, TO WIN AN ELECTION. I guess I am an idiot, but want my 1/200 millionth vote to count. I may have been wrong, we may in the end agree on more than realized, but how to keep from getting to what is becoming a socialized government or the exact opposite of Libertarian, may be getting further from a reality and they garnered less votes this year than ever and with the most qualified than ever. Wake up, roses still smell nice...

Neocons and Evangelicals are usually Republicans and throw in Social Conservatives, you probably have 75% of the total. Republicans will never win w/o these groups, certainly not as its now constructed. Small government and centrist, don't fit together. Centrist want government in charge of certain issues, according to the times and not much different then Democrats. Unless Obama, is a total idiot, he will serve two terms and were then talking 8 years. Who knows what will be needed then or if small government even be possible. Reagan, my personal favorite, actually increased government and GWB made Carter/Johnson appear to be small government advocates. I would like to know WHO or todays comparative person you think would be best???

I really don't like arguing what can be perceived anti-gay attitude, but where does 'consensual adults' leave the genetic issue. Every person evolves in life sexually speaking and any long married couple or Dr. Ruth and others will tell you to keep a marriage alive to keep trying new things. This is fetish development and there is no evidence people are born predisposed to any of these, IMO even being straight or gay. Are transvestites, cross dressers, exhibitionist or any of the 200 categories found on any porn site all born with some genetic defect. Bi-sexual is probably the most common if nothing else finding some same sex persons, sexually attractive. Does this mean the person has some gene between these two extremes or a learned desire. Many of both sex, of one race are attracted to other races, even if simply some trait to their appearance. There could be some brain effect, where some part of the brain is more/less active in different people or in some manner activated, but this would be no less true on any issue which makes all basically different.

I would oppose any book being banned from public libraries and feel its up to each of the 2000 plus school districts to determine what their kids are subjected to. The Potter books are today banned in many of them for being 'Satanic', however they got that impression. Troopergate, involved a domestic dispute (Palin's family) and even possible future candidates are entitled to dislike in laws. They have of course all been dropped or found unwarranted and now moot... She is probably (not sure) very intelligent. Political handlers, especially those involved with the lead candidate (McCain) can be very restrictive to what advocates say, which is the job of all VP candidates. She does seem to have a little 'down home way' of articulating, but having known Dolly Pardon, I can tell you that may not indicate anything other than showmanship. Spent two years in Alaska in the 50's and don't recall anybody sounding like a Texan. Out of curiosity, would you give her any credit for climbing up from PTA, to Mayor, to a Governor with 80% approval rating, while married and the mother of five, ANY CREDIT??? As has been mentioned, what happens in 3-4 years is not really the important thing to concentrate on today. We have enough problems now, a new President and looks like plenty of countries wanting to test his resolve. While all this is going on, under the table activity has already begun to pick and choose the 2012 people and frankly this means for Obama as well.

IMO, We all make a conscious choice based on natural physical reactions to others, male or female. Your welcome to include nurturing, environment or peer pressure, but in short as these feelings develop, consequences are the last thing thought about. Let me be clear, for iNow; If the choice or the turn on, is same sex, there is nothing right or wrong in that choice. iNow.. No, this is what you said...

My comments to 'Moon', which I specifically stated 'FROM MY EXPERIENCE' was not intended to take on the 'cause' for sexual preferences. It has been my experience and from owning/operating many business, including Bars and had no problems discussing gay issues, that first sexual contact can set a pattern for life. I'll leave genetics to the biologist and their findings to those that have agenda, I have none on that issue. iNow; Name calling in a discussion is really not necessary with me. I dare say, I know more about the gay/lesbian lifestyle, those practicing and why than you will ever know and base my opinions more from their testimony than you would accept. If I and I often do, explicitly indicate something is my opinion or in this case experience, this leaves the door open for other viewpoints being correct. I will add for your benefit, the probably 200 or more of this group I have known are more respectful of others and their viewpoints than those that oppose them. Bigotry stems from ignorance, as does the accusation, be carefull...

Hi Moon; Perceived injustices happen TO ALL PEOPLE and on a daily basis, its part of life and we should live with most and if change is required it should be for the betterment of that society. No gay person is being denied anything where any other person has a right. If you go to benefits or anything else. To qualify for certain benefits has to have a base or an acceptable place where they can be obtained. People can use law (contracts) to insure those rights and State law already can steps in on long term relationship where wills or contracts were neglected. I don't think any person is born gay/lesbian, at least not from my own experiences. To me its a perversion/rebellion or that old being different attitude all kids go through, including myself. The 13 kids (7 of my own) I helped raise seem to have a different problem and at last count have some 40 plus kids of their own. The world may have been a little better off if I had turned gay and like every other person on this planet, the thought had occurred to me.

Yes, I believe the US Constitution has laid out a very good system for change and movements should take that approach. Many movements, in particular 'degrading the sanctity of marriage' at the expense of Religious people, realize the system will take years and people in movements want action, yesterday. Stepping on or over rights//beliefs of others by demonstration, accusation and intimidation doesn't equate to American, IN MY OPINION. I realize there are always fringe element of any movement but in all honesty 'Gay Rights' has some really strange and dangerous elements at that fringe. You might google 'San Francisco Up your Alley Fair', an annual Fair protected by the local SF Police and not a good place to take your kids. No, I explicitly mentioned 'moving to' not from, but my reference to suburbs was a true example, where people did move from. People move into or out of areas all the time for hundreds of reasons. They use 'better schools', 'less violence' 'taxes' or a host of reasons all generally more sinister reasons. You are continuously trying to link Slavery and the perception of a past society into todays 'Same Sex Marriage' which is an injustice to those that believe marriage should have a certain standard. Personally, I am not religious and don't care who lives with who or why. I opposed governments recent actions (methods) against your Texas Fundamentalist LDS and a disruption of that society based on an anonymous phone call. Law works both ways and to achieve some goal by usurping the law is a very dangerous and destructive tool.

Then why not require students to voluntarily work in their chosen field. If they are studying medicine- volunteer at hospitals, Law- work around a courtroom and if Social Services then in community service. The idea in the first place is submission to possible failure, which seems counter productive to the purpose of education or achievement with perseverance.

The Book Ban thing has been put to rest; The Harry Potter Books she reportedly wanted banned, had not been released and no books, including Potter have since been banned. Her attitudes on Homosexuality or moral issues are based on her religion. Compared to Catholics or Muslim religions, think you will find mild but probably not much different than most Americans. IMO; When running for or assuming office in US Government, religion should be left at the doorsteps of Congress or the White House. Congress people represent their districts/States and of course the P VP represent all of us and religious freedoms are purely INDIVIDUAL beliefs, no less than what color shirt to where or whats for dinner. They do however have personal (and they are) convictions and do represent people with many of the same ideas. Closed minded or an inability to understand another's viewpoint has no place in politics or in governing any society. I think Palin has demonstrated an understanding for this...

iNow; No State is required to enact law, to conform to any other State. If the 14th A falls under your interpretation, agreed to by the California and establishes law over the peoples wishes, nothing has changed to State rights. Until the SC Rules that interpretation is valid and/or 'sexual orientation' (assume any and beyond Gay) is equal to race (a stretch) there will remain 50 different sets of law governing acceptable qualifications for recognition and/or benefits. NOTHING, short of an amendment can change the only US Law regarding 'qualifying' for status or man/woman for benefits or a rewording (reinventing) of the wheel. "Equal protection" of the Federal Law ONLY, has implied guarantee or can be . There is no guarantee being with held to gay/lesbians, or in fact any persons preferences in life style including polygamy, cultural behavior or out of necessity lifestyles. There are thousands of written law prohibiting or permitting all kinds of things in any one State, where perfectly legal in others, denying rights to one or the other. I would venture most people think many laws are set by the Federal when in fact, THEY ARE NOT. The difference being the common interest of most, being the same. Since you brought up 'Don't ask, don't tell'; This is a form of acceptance forced on members of a group, operating outside US Law. Uniform Code of Military Justice, where rights are heavily restricted, in the first place, and I suggest 'don't tell' is or would be a violation (restriction) of their rights today. I frankly do NOT oppose as the members voluntarily join these services and are not forced. If I move to San Francisco, NYC, Florida or anyplace I can check out laws/regulation/taxes and so on to get an understanding of the difference of that society, comparing it to my beliefs and their interest of my family. Rural areas around urban areas (suburbs) grew on this very principle.

iNow; Your arguments, agreed to by the California Supreme Court are duly noted. However my arguments are not in opposing 'same sex marriage', rather than the chaos it will bring to State Structures which have already made law, to OPPOSE these recognitions and in fact those other States MAY endorse. My argument continues to the base for law, the idea should be addressed, a Federal Constitutional Amendment which if ratified would make all States conform their law to justify this acceptance. Since probably 40 States have some law which directly attacks any law of another State and this recognition, your setting up for massive problems, all of which is lined up to promote a minority agenda, or that some people with certain rights in one State, will not have those rights if they move. To avoid all this, including those rights, it MUST come from and be part of Federal Law. What I would like you or some one thinking sexual orientation of ONE segment of society, to word such an amendment, in simplistic terms. We already have many segments of society that live in or under other than the recognized male/female interpretation and are denied those benefit/legal rights, are never officially married under law and in fact have some that would never recognize that endorsement, in the first place. The problem is Marriage was a Religious concept in the first place, under our system not a matter for the Federal and in most States controlled by the majority. All legal under our system and cannot or should not be forced on to another State. On a side note; When Black/Whites were not covered by the amendment, most States had already allowed such marriages and recognized the union. I might add 'inter racial' marriage had been going on long before there was even a US, when discriminations were based on theological differences. Another side note to show confusion/chaos; In NM, where I live you can obtain a State Marriage License to marry, if you agree to move to Massachusetts with in one year. It might be interesting to know how this can be enforced, but an example of just whats going on around the country and the pressures being place on society.

We are a Nation of laws. If a person or a group of persons wishes to change, what I am calling the base, then YES it should be from the original base in this case our Constitution. The founders understood, change would occur and provided THAT procedure for change. There is not one law or will there ever be where every person could agree on in any society. The society that existed long before the US formed accepted certain principals beyond any acceptance of todays but what was, was. Anarchy or the nonacceptance of law (our foundation) and with a prescribed procedure, must be followed or the power of small groups will overcome the majority. There are today, small segment of society that believe, even practicing many thing unacceptable to the majority. Polygamy to rights of women on to EXACTLY what religion is acceptable. These groups and hundreds of others are encouraged by the idea, change in the society can be changed from the bottom, opposed to the concepts and principles of this country. You really don't want to encourage, our rights to demonstrate and voice a public opinion, to be confused with 'rule of law'.

I have probably visited 200 people in the hospitasl in my life, granted during visiting hours, but have never been asked if I was a family member. They do ask under some conditions, terminal cases, children or new births but these are for the security of the patience and would be to any one, gay or not. I have posted numerous times, indicating a base and the base is where common law has to work with, in developing law, during investigation of crime, on into prosecution and sentencing. Domestic law is probably the most common offense reported and followed up on by law enforcements in any city, county or State and each having its own system. It is my primary argument in opposing additional classification to what constitutes a RECOGNIZED union of two people. Those that are pushing this agenda IMO are interested in the benefits, which are also covered by a serious of law and again to some locality. If you change status of any two people to the same status of what currently recognized, it will have to come from the Federal System, most logically the Congress itself and agreed (ratified amendment) by the required number (37) to allow any conformity in all the laws of all those States. What you and others are suggesting are suits/counter suits and an inevitability of the "slippery slope" as people naturally move around, want services or benefits in places other than they were married. I would not oppose such an amendment to the Constitution, but do oppose the current agenda to adjust American Society from the bottom up.

Except for 'both parties', thought was backing up your point...I think you would admit a lot of Clinton voters (18 million) did set this election out or voted as Democrats!!! for McCain...As for those States in the article with higher turn out numbers, they also have the highest % of black population. When you consider the 'referendums' (in many States) that should have drawn very large groups, you end up with a low interest in either party, my opinion... My 123m figure; did NOT include the 2m that voted for for the other 14 parties receiving vote in 2008 and which are also historically low.

About 123m voted in this years election, as was the total in 2004. I have not seen any demographic statistics, but I would bet both the young and black votes were up dramatically. Estimates before this cycle ranged up to 140m turn out with 135 the expected. Some one stayed home, but suggest neither party was very enthused this year...other than those two traditionally democrat demographics.

Please explain the difference in 'Close Minded' and 'Convictions'. You and I certainly will not agree on many issues, but I would prefer to think your being governed by conviction, even passionately, but not closed minded. US politics and personal convictions have little meaning in serving an Office for the total. Obama, may want to do certain things, certainly will try but in the end he will accomplish very little if he were to stick to his promises or his apparent desire to socialize American Government. There are to many checks along the road to prevent this or any major change in government. He, Palin or any person is limited to the enforcement of laws, the Constitution and the protection of the Union. Congress establishes the law and together they can change some things, but limited to the same. Most major changes, including 99% of welfare or any social issue is reliant and dependent on the State Government, rarely discussed.

The moderates and liberals that were to be in McCain's camp, were likely concerned with experience, War on Terror or increased taxes. The VP slot traditionally adds little or no help to the ticket. Those that opposed her being on the Ticket, were wanting another of the losers that ran for the number one slot, not unlike those wanting Clinton on there ticket. There was no apparent loss in either party by either party and the point... Guess you forget about the pundits outside the Republican Party inter management, those that do NOT agree in total with the those members or the structure. Rush Limbaugh (Radio Audience of about 20M weekly), Hennedy of Fox News (Radio audience of 18m weekly and highly rated daily TV show), Ann Colter (author and advocate) along with at least a hundred others, National/Local that turned on the nomination from NO MCCAIN SUPPORT TO LIMITED into outright supported for the ticket. Rove, Gingrich or hundreds of others that DID favor other VP picks but supported the decision or the simple fact that pick drove MEDIA and the Dem's crazy. Even the media that supported Obama, making no bones about it, all commented on the enthusiasm during the RNC Convention and the CAUSE.

If so many feel Palin is their best change to dethrone Obama in four years, this would disqualify the theory of her being the cause for defeat. The squabbling with in the Republican was IMO over who that VP person should have been. Most advisers in McCain's camp came from the primary losers camps, or the candidates themselves. I would suggest McCain and his some what moderate stance in the past few years and his campaign to attract moderates/independents (not the base) was the death blow and even before the actual nomination. Palin then the lifeblood of any possible resurrection. If the Mother of five in a reasonable happy marriage and having a real life outside politics, WANTS to even seek higher office, their are already top campaign managers on her doorsteps, would NOT surprise me if 'Rove' himself one of them. I would bet they have outlined a program, starting with getting into National Politics ASAP (the Senate) learning some Spanish and planning on spending time in Caucus States in two years. That would be much different than becoming VP and a questionable goal....

You MAY still be asked if your a member (doubt) but would any gay person living in a union, say NO I am not. Then what authority (none) does the hospital have to check your statement. This is a ploy used by advocates....

This idea that a society has no right to limit its taxes for purposes the majority feel unwarranted or needed in the society is really hard for me to understand. You are are attacking the voters as though they oppose the gay life style. This is not the story and no ballot suggested anything like that. The only thing denied are benefits or legal status to operate a household in certain areas and except for those few tax provided benefits those households already have equal status. Try the Welfare Program for RIGHTS. If a mother of three and not married can receive certain tax supported benefits, however if she were to marry a husband with a job those rights are then denied. If she owns a certain year car, those rights denied and if she takes a job those rights are reduced or again denied. You have to have a BASE for any tax provided entity. Again, if you provide those benefits for two people, that happen to be of the same sex, how are you going to deny any other two people those same benefits. The US is truly a diversified country, for religious, cultural or even some perverse reason folks live together and do all the things the 'so called' typical couple do. bascule; Under law the 'Marriage License' affords you certain benefits/protections under common law. Its a contract acceptable to the State. Any two people who choose not to marry or prevented from legal status, regardless of sexual orientation, can and often do enter into a contract. I am not sure common law in all states doesn't already accept under law any of those two people certain additional right after living together for a certain period, regardless of sexual preference brother/sister atc....If two people live in a house or ten people and the one whose name the title is in dies, there are rights maintained for those others, even if not under contract. There are reasons, some people are pushing this issue, that go far beyond social acceptance of that one particular sexual orientation. As for visiting a person in a hospital, I seriously doubt any person would TODAY be denied visitation rights because he/she is gay....