John Adams

I don't care that she said it. This is not a case of the PC police saying, "You can't say things like that in public." To me, this is a case of people expressing outrage about her exact opinion on the issue--this is about the issue, not her right to opine on it. Perez Hilton just set Ms. California up as the lightning rod for this issue. Similarly, there were a million instances of discrimination and defiance before that one woman refused to go to the back of the bus--it just turned out that Rosa Parks's one moment of defiance focused the dialog.

This is how the system works. Unless Obama appoints a disaster, he gets to make the choice and the choice gets approved. I'm interested to see who he picks. Roberts was a good choice from an otherwise disastrous presidency.

Yeah. My grandfather had to choke back a lot of his racism when his biracial grandkids were born. EII may well have to do the same one day if his kids/grandkids turn out to be homosexuals.

I guess that returns me to the earlier point. You're social perspective on this is going the way of the dodo.

I think his point is actually that EVERYONE is born straight and homosexuals just choose to be different. He bases this--I'm guessing--on the fact that he is straight.

I disagree. I am sure you know/have met kids who seemed exhibited NONsexual homosexual tendencies at young ages...and who later turned out to be homosexual. If you haven't, I know I have. In fact, I just reconnected with someone who I knew from 1st to 5th grade--and back then I thought he was gay. Turns out in 2009, he's gay. On the other hand, some people choose one preference over the other or are driven to one preference over the other. But that issue misses the point. Who cares if you're born or choose it or are driven to your choice of preference? The issue here is "marriage" and the rights associated with it. I don't know if you're born "to be married" and yet we allow adults to do it and give them a whole bundle of rights and benefits when they do--but limit the definition of marriage to opposite-sex marriage without much reason. BTW, I don't care what churches do. Limit or don't based on your religious beliefs. My concern is what the state does.

Society gets to decide certain things but we do not live in a pure democracy. Our system of governance provides equal rights to people regardless of what the majority believes is correct. It's why children don't have to work in coal mines any more. It's how black people got the right to vote. And on and on. We protect the minority from oppression where it is possible. In this case, denial of the rights and privileges of marriage--and even saying "You can't use the word 'marriage' to describe your unions"--is oppressive. If you're looking for social standards on this, the overwhelming trend (not yet majority I will concede but TREND) is hugely growing in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. And among those under 40, the majority (not just trend) is enormously in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. So socially, the idea of restricting marriage to be between a man and a woman will go away soon enough no matter what oppressive legal prohibitions are put in place right now. It's just an idea and social standard whose day has come.

I like pizza. She touched my pepe Steve.

I'm sorry that I don't read your posts as closely as you like. In any event, I see that you're really upset and I apologize. It's just a message board and if it helps, your reaction is pretty textbook for a narcissist who get confronted by the cold hard facts of his failings. I still suggest that you get some help. I'm done attacking you--I didn't mean to hurt you like this. The latest outbursts show that you've obviously had enough. Good luck man.

Gary the Retard. Maybe Eric the Retard is a lovechild of Eric the Midget (Ack ack) and Gary the Retard?

The line a few days ago where he said he's been talking offline to cincy about some of these issues was the first tell.

That's my second favorite part. I love the part where he says he could get in serious trouble for saying what he's said here, ya know, talking out his ass on TBD!

He only comes around this board when there is some bit of really bad news so he can tell us that he predicted something (when he did not). But he's been here for a bit. He used to be "Dwight Drane" and now he's "Time to Choose." Don't listen to Tom. You don't scratch the surface of this guy's personality disorder.

!@#$ me. I took the train this morning. And will tonight. And tomorrow. And tomorrow. And tomorrow. Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. Mr. Bradley made me memorize that in AP English. Thanks a lot Ed.

If there's one thing I know to be true, it's Franklin's addage: "Three can keep a secret if two are dead."

If you read his earlier post, he finds reassurance that as the world comes crashing down, people will think, "Man, That crazy guy on the Bills board was right."

Facts are stubborn things man. I said so.

1:28pm. Dow 8212.

I reserve salutes for those about to rock. Fiyah!

Thank you Jesus and baby Jesus.

I corrected the one thing I thought he might understand.

Panicking has a "K."

He voted against the Rep party line 33% of the time but often, the Dems and Repubs agree and therefore he probably will still be against the Dems 1/3 of the time. (The odds of me caring enough to figure out how often he voted against the Repubs on issues where the Dems and Repubs had opposite stances is nil.)

Gay marriage gets me pissed off but it's low on my national priority scale. The number of pols who actually say* they favor gay marriage is tiny even though something like 75% of people under 40 favor it. The tide will turn on this issue eventually--and already is. Just have to wait for old idiots to die. *I believe the number that could give a sh-- or support it is much higher but they are a bunch of pandering losers.

I think you have it wrong. It's because he votes against party 33% of the time, ie that he sticks to his beliefs, that he's so vulnerable to Republican attack. And it's because of those core beliefs that he wins the statewide election so easily, ie, because so many Dems and independents support him. He's always struggled with the Repub primary. This year, the writing was on the wall. The Alabama part of PA was not going to let Arlen win the Repub primary. With this move, he should easily win another term.