Obama just threw a big bet down on the table.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html

This might irritate some Dems but Romney could be in a pickle trapped between members of his own party while Obama beats him with a rhetorical bludgeon.

-spence

tell me why this isnt Obama catering to his base? You would slam repubs if they did something similar.

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

Interesting how this spilled. First with Joe a week ago and now the Pres has come around. Yep - just happened to "evolve" his position right after announcing. How convenient as the Church Lady would say :rotf2:

Personally - I really don't care but this politics as usal from both parties is gettin' old.

tell me why this isnt Obama catering to his base? You would slam repubs if they did something similar.
If he was catering to his base he would have done it in 2008 but the risk was higher. I think the timing here is more calculated.

Not sure why you're so uppity, we all know you fully endorse gay love :love:

-spence

so basically he is catering to his base when there is less to lose, great.

personally, I endorse love and its not my business who people love or whether its called marriage or not. Marriage between two consenting adults, man or woman should be no concern for the govt as marriage is a legal arrangement and nothing more. If churchs want to ban it, thats their business. Govt should have no say. So I guess that makes me pro-gay marriage.

so basically he is catering to his base when there is less to lose, great.
No, I think it's called well managed organizational change.

Obama took a measured approach to unwind DADT and I think has been very successful. The gay marriage thang is more tricky as it's likely to be more of an issue at the state level but will be a focus in the national debate...

I think it was a good card to play. It's one of those issues that once you get over it you realize it really wasn't worth the fuss in the first place.

-spence

tell me why this isnt Obama catering to his base? .

Here's why...

(1) blacks, as a group, hate the idea of gay marriage. They absolutely hate it. It won't make blacks vote for Romney, but it could dampen black enthusiasm.

(2) gay marriage, I believe, has been on the ballot in 32 states, and it has been rejected in 32 states It's only legal in states where judges have ordered it (that was true recently, not sure if it's still true). It's not just tea partiers who are opposed to gay marriage, if it were just tea partiers, how did gay marriage get rejected in California?

I'm shocked he had the courage to stick his neck out. I'll give him credit, because the fact that gay marriage is rejected everywhere, tells me he isn't making as many friends as he's losing.

No, I think it's called well managed organizational change.

-spence

Ha, ha. If it were someone in the other party, would you be calling it "flip - flop"?

Spence, you should have typed "Gay Marrage" in the subject thread. Looking at the page it reads:

Gay love
spence

.

personally, I endorse love and its not my business who people love or whether its called marriage or not. Marriage between two consenting adults, man or woman should be no concern for the govt as marriage is a legal arrangement and nothing more. If churchs want to ban it, thats their business. Govt should have no say. So I guess that makes me pro-gay marriage.

And I think this sums up why the WH did this.

This is (from my observations) the opinion of a lot of independent voters. He will force Mitt to respond, how it plays out... :huh: I do think politically it is a gamble, especially with what happened in NC yesterday.

As far as this issue goes, I have yet to hear an argument (excluding churches, which can do as they want) as to why this is such a big deal. I find the marriage of a gay or lesbian couple less deeming to the sanctity of marriage than a quickie Vegas wedding or Kim Kardashian etc... unless we start calling all non-church weddings Civil Unions :huh:

Ha, ha. If it were someone in the other party, would you be calling it "flip - flop"?

No, Obama has always kept his position as "evolving"...political speak for not the right time.

-spence

I'm shocked he had the courage to stick his neck out. I'll give him credit, because the fact that gay marriage is rejected everywhere, tells me he isn't making as many friends as he's losing.
Well, it's not rejected everywhere and interestingly enough polls seem to show much more support that state constitutions or laws would indicate.

Bryan nails it, any of us can go online get ordained as a minister and be performing as many perfectly "legal" weddings in 48 states as we'd like. 50% will end in a divorce...

Gay rights is one of those issues where I think the dems come out ahead by leading the charge.

-spence

Well, it's not rejected everywhere and interestingly enough polls seem to show much more support that state constitutions or laws would indicate.

-spence

I think part of the fact that polls show one thing, voting another is, that the folks for it (not the activists) are less passionate to vote on an issue like this than folks against it, largely based on religious beliefs (not a judgement on folks beliefs FYI).

Turn-out pro then, tends to be less than turn-out con, even though they tell a pollster on the phone they think it should be legal.... Jim should be able to marry Fishbones without any problem, even in Texas :D

Again, to quote Jon Stewart from many years ago, "Gay Marriage must be mandatory, why else would anyone give a #^&#^&#^&#^&" (And I use the quote recognizing a churches right to define marriage as they see fit)

Gay Marriage : Foamy The Squirrel - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KLMYaF_Xa8)

For the record, this is one of the things, while I disagree with, I respect Mitt for. This seems to be one of the few issues he has remained true to his core, and is rooted in his faith. Good for him.

Obama had to do something after pissing off the gays, when he failed to fix "don't ask don't tell" for a number of years. Something he promised to do right away.
He is a pandering phony. Although I take Jimmy's position in this also.

OBAMA has been wishie washie since being a senator in Chicargo about same sex marriage....looking for the votes....there goes the electoral votes in SC and probabally in NC with his decision...majority of blacks do not believe in same sex marriages...but we know the majority of the black vote will go to Obama regardless

Obama had to do something after pissing off the gays, when he failed to fix "don't ask don't tell" for a number of years. Something he promised to do right away.


But, he did get it done. So they can't be too pissed.

Also, it was interesting that this was an opinion in an interview. He didn't propose a mandate and said it still should be left to the states...


He is a pandering phony.
I take flippity flop Mitt at his word that he has always been against it, maybe I'll take Obama's word that his position did evolve...

This is (from my observations) the opinion of a lot of independent voters. :

Can you elucidate on those observations? Personally, I have no problems with gay marriage. But gay marriage was flatly rejected by the first 32 states where it was voted on, and that includes California and Oregon. It was rejected in red states, blue states, and purple states.

I see very little support for gay marriage outside of the far left. Which is funny, because that's one of the very, very things I agree with liberals on. But the vast, vast majority of Americans clearly don't want it.

I can only assume Obama said this to energize his base, but it will alienate the independents he needs.

Well, it's not rejected everywhere and interestingly enough polls seem to show much more support that state constitutions or laws would indicate.

Bryan nails it, any of us can go online get ordained as a minister and be performing as many perfectly "legal" weddings in 48 states as we'd like. 50% will end in a divorce...

Gay rights is one of those issues where I think the dems come out ahead by leading the charge.

-spence

" it's not rejected everywhere "

Spence, in the first 32 states that voted on it, it was shot down. As far as I know, not one state has approved it by vote, it is only legal in places (like CT) where the courts odrered it. They won't vote on it in CT because even here, as blue a state as you can get, it would get shot down.

So when you say it's "not rejected everywhere", I think (I may be wrong) you made that up. Please tell us where it has been approved by voters, not where it was rammed down the public's throat by activist judges?

"polls seem to show much more support "

What polls? Spence, it was rejected in 32 consecutive states, and that includes California and Oregon, for God's sakes.

I actually agree with you on the issue, I'm just stating the facts. You seem to be making stuff up...

I think part of the fact that polls show one thing, voting another is, that the folks for it (not the activists) are less passionate to vote on an issue like this than folks against it, largely based on religious beliefs (not a judgement on folks beliefs FYI).

Turn-out pro then, tends to be less than turn-out con, even though they tell a pollster on the phone they think it should be legal.... Jim should be able to marry Fishbones without any problem, even in Texas :D

Again, to quote Jon Stewart from many years ago, "Gay Marriage must be mandatory, why else would anyone give a #^&#^&#^&#^&" (And I use the quote recognizing a churches right to define marriage as they see fit)

In the 2008 election, Obama won California by a huge margin. In that same vote in California, gay marriage was on the ballot. It was rejected. The same folks who came out for Obama, said "no" to gay marriage. I cannot explain that, but it's fact.

In the 2008 election, Obama won California by a huge margin. In that same vote in California, gay marriage was on the ballot. It was rejected. The same folks who came out for Obama, said "no" to gay marriage. I cannot explain that, but it's fact.

I don't think Specne is wrong in saying Polls say one thing. the results of elections saw another. I proposed one idea. Maybe in California it wasn't the case of turn-out, but I do still believe it may be the case in so-called special elections...

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx)

It was inevitable he would come out in favor once he started saying his position was evolving. Maybe got pushed into it a little earlier than he wanted due to Biden. I don't think it will help or hurt him that much either way.

In the 2008 election, Obama won California by a huge margin. In that same vote in California, gay marriage was on the ballot. It was rejected. The same folks who came out for Obama, said "no" to gay marriage. I cannot explain that, but it's fact.

I think there are two reasons.

1) Demographics. I'd wager that younger people are more tolerant of same sex marriage yet they don't turn out in as large of numbers. They also have much less influence over the political debate.

This obviously, is changing.

2) Unity. I'd wager that anti-same sex bills have had less opposition because politicians have tried to distance themselves from the debate. It's also easier to rally against something than rally for it...

That's what's fundamentally different this time around, with the POTUS advocating for equal rights you're likely going to see a lot more Congress people and state representatives coming out of the closet to join Obama. Already today Jack Reed did just that.

Same sex marriage laws have been approved via legislation in Vermont, the District of Columbia, Washington (pending) and Maine where it was delayed.

Yes, in other states it's been through the courts but remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree ;)

-spence

I think there are two reasons.

1) Demographics. I'd wager that younger people are more tolerant of same sex marriage yet they don't turn out in as large of numbers. They also have much less influence over the political debate.

This obviously, is changing.

2) Unity. I'd wager that anti-same sex bills have had less opposition because politicians have tried to distance themselves from the debate. It's also easier to rally against something than rally for it...

That's what's fundamentally different this time around, with the POTUS advocating for equal rights you're likely going to see a lot more Congress people and state representatives coming out of the closet to join Obama. Already today Jack Reed did just that.

Same sex marriage laws have been approved via legislation in Vermont, the District of Columbia, Washington (pending) and Maine where it was delayed.

Yes, in other states it's been through the courts but remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree ;)

-spence

Gay marriage wasn't delayed in ME. The approved gay marriage law was struck down by public referendum. The law asn't delayed, it was defeated.

"with the POTUS advocating for equal rights you're likely going to see a lot more Congress people and state representatives "

We'll see. While I agree with you on gay marriage, I dobn't think this POTUS has as much weight (especially with non-liberals) as you suspect.

"remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree ;)"

Not in my case.

i think this hurts Obama slightly more than it helps him. Which means one of two things. Either he is politically brave, or he has stupid advisers.

The only issue I have with gay marriage is this...if you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, by what logic do you not include groups of 3 or 4? Where do you draw the line?

Gay marriage wasn't delayed in ME. The approved gay marriage law was struck down by public referendum. The law asn't delayed, it was defeated.
After it was signed into law, it just wasn't implemented.

We'll see. While I agree with you on gay marriage, I dobn't think this POTUS has as much weight (especially with non-liberals) as you suspect.
Politically Obama needs issues he think can motivate the middle. If Romney moves Right on the issue it will irritate independent voters.

The only issue I have with gay marriage is this...if you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, by what logic do you not include groups of 3 or 4? Where do you draw the line?

Modern ethics in the Western World has clearly settled on monogamy as the norm. In this context it would make no difference if you were taking multiple same sex partners vs heterosexual ones.

They're different issues entirely.

-spence

Well, it's not rejected everywhere and interestingly enough polls seem to show much more support that state constitutions or laws would indicate.

Bryan nails it, any of us can go online get ordained as a minister and be performing as many perfectly "legal" weddings in 48 states as we'd like. 50% will end in a divorce...

Gay rights is one of those issues where I think the dems come out ahead by leading the charge.

-spence

There ar 16 million baptists in the south and midwest that will not vote for Obama to the person. Ohio and those other swing states are not going to be labeled in the majority for gay marriage under any circumstances. And its not just the baptists who will swing anyway but for Obama. Maybe here in the east and on the very west coast it will work out well for the dems with the gays and lesbians, not in middle America.

After it was signed into law, it just wasn't implemented.


Politically Obama needs issues he think can motivate the middle. If Romney moves Right on the issue it will irritate independent voters.



Modern ethics in the Western World has clearly settled on monogamy as the norm. In this context it would make no difference if you were taking multiple same sex partners vs heterosexual ones.

They're different issues entirely.

-spence

"After it was signed into law, it just wasn't implemented."

As usual, you are 100% wrong on the facts. Do you know why it wasn't implemented, in Maine? Because after the politicians signed it into law, the public said "not so fast, we want to vote on this." It went to a public vote, and the public, like they have every single time they have been given a say on this, rejected it. Again, you are not entitled to your own facts. Look it up. I'm right. The politicians didn't decide on their own to delay implementation - the public said "hell, no". And that's in liberal Maine.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maine-gay-marriage-law-repealed/story?id=8992720

A key quote, if you are interested in truth...

"Voters rejected a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. The repeal comes just six months after the measure was passed by the Maine legislature and signed by the Democratic Gov. John Baldacci. "



"Politically Obama needs issues he think can motivate the middle."

I agree. However, if gay marriage has been voted on 32 times, and it has been rejected 32 times (32 for 32, that is incredible), please tell me how openly supporting gay marriage helps Obama with independents. You cannot tell me that only radicals oppose gay marriage, not if it has been summarily rejected 32 times in 32 attempts. Few issues have such a consensus. North Carolina is hardly a hardcore conservative state - Obama won there in 2008 - and homosexual marriage was shot down in a rout.

"Modern ethics in the Western World has clearly settled on monogamy as the norm"

I cannot imagine what planet you live on if you think that. I support monogomy, but that puts me in a very small minority. Rick Santorum was crucified for his traditional Catholic beliefs. More than 50% of marriages end in divorce, abortions are up, infidelity is up...Spence, I sincerely wish monogomy was the norm, but that's one of the most demonstrably false things you have ever said. Your side, the liberal side, gets a lot of talking points from Hollywood. Tell me how common monogomy is out there, and in other liberal places.

One other thing about homesexuality. And again, I'm in favor of gay marriage. But a homesexual relationship is not the same thing as a heterosexual relationship, there is a huge, huge difference. One of those unions can produce life, the other cannot. Society cannot exist without heterosexual relationships, therefore society has a vested interest in protecting heterosexual relationships. I do not see homosexual marriage as a threat to traditional marriage, but I can see where someone else might.

And I asked a question that you - once again - chose to ignore. If you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, how can you exclude a threesome? What if 3 consenting adults genuinely love each other? Who are you to say they can't be married? Why don't they have the same rights as the rest of us? Every single argument in favor of gay marriage, every single one, can just as easily be used to support the right of a threesome to be married. I'd love to see you refute that.

HOLY CRAP!!!Lets dumb this thread down.

More than half the country thinks this guy sucks and Election Day is now under six months away.This man will lick the nuts of anyone willing to unzip so as to get as many votes as he can.Its called pandering and its really that simple.How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?

There ar 16 million baptists in the south and midwest that will not vote for Obama to the person. Ohio and those other swing states are not going to be labeled in the majority for gay marriage under any circumstances. And its not just the baptists who will swing anyway but for Obama. Maybe here in the east and on the very west coast it will work out well for the dems with the gays and lesbians, not in middle America.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No.

No.

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure.

[QUOTE=spence;938224]Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?

QUOTE]

The historian Elaine Frantz Parsons describes the membership:

Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen

Same sex marriage laws have been approved via legislation in Vermont, the District of Columbia, Washington (pending) and Maine where it was delayed.

Yes, in other states it's been through the courts but remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree ;)

-spence

wrong...it's judicial activism when you legislate from the bench circumventing the voters and/or their representatives as you've pointed out...doesn't have anything to do with agreeing or disagreeing, it has to do with respect for the law and understanding the limits and proper role of your office......

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you're hardly in a position here to question anyone else's facts.

I agree Obama did this to get votes. That was his intent. But I think it's a boneheaded move that will cost him more votes than it gets him. Obama already had a lock on the gay vote. IMHO opinion,supporting gay marriage hurts him with independents, as gay marriage has been almost universally rejected.

Bump to keep this at the top!

Spence, you're hardly in a position here to question anyone else's facts.
Based on your continued use of the word I really don't know what a fact means to you.

I agree Obama did this to get votes. That was his intent. But I think it's a boneheaded move that will cost him more votes than it gets him. Obama already had a lock on the gay vote. IMHO opinion,supporting gay marriage hurts him with independents, as gay marriage has been almost universally rejected.
The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

The objective is to position Obama as forward leaning and in contrast to Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters.

I'd wager this is part of a larger strategy and we'll see more ideas similar to this in the future.

-spence

Based on your continued use of the word I really don't know what a fact means to you.


The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

The objective is to position Obama as forward leaning and in contrast to Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters.

I'd wager this is part of a larger strategy and we'll see more ideas similar to this in the future.

-spence

"I really don't know what a fact means to you."

Then let me elucidate...it means the truth. For example, you kept saying that in ME, the gay marriage law was signed, but the legislature chose to delay implementation. I posted a link to show that your statement was factually incorrect. The public voted to strike down the law.

"Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters."

You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.

So you're saying that vote that just happened a few days ago, no longer reflects the political tone in that state? That vote is antiquated already? If they took another vote today, the results would be different? That's what you're saying?

Jamie: voters in NC rejected gay marriage this week.

Spence: That's old news, that position is now dated by independents.

Spence, I get that you really, really hope independent voters are swooning about how forward-thinking and enlightened Obama is. I understand you really, really want that to be the case. But that hope does not trump the reality of what happened in NC a few days ago.

That's the difference between us. I agree with you that gays should be able to marry. Unlike you, I recognize the reality that most people (or at least most people who vote) don't feel that way. I react to reality, you base your existence on what you wish reality looked like.

Then let me elucidate...it means the truth.

You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.


To clarify, since we are dealing in facts, NC, had already rejected same-sex marriage with a law... This was to make an amendment so it couldn't be struck down by a judge.

end of fact, begin opinion :D

I do think there is a huge influence of the money for the 'pro-(straight) marriage' side and more passionate turn-out for the anti-gay marriage side than the pro, but this may not explain all of the 20% gap in NC. I would like to know the breakdown of party affiliation and voter turn-out in NC, but I don't have time to look right now.

Something changes between the Gallup and other polls and voter turn-out though...

Then let me elucidate...

elucidate - e·lu·ci·date - Make (something) clear; explain: "work that will help to elucidate this matter"; "they would not elucidate further".

Not going to lie, had to look that one up.............

Then let me elucidate...it means the truth. For example, you kept saying that in ME, the gay marriage law was signed, but the legislature chose to delay implementation. I posted a link to show that your statement was factually incorrect. The public voted to strike down the law.
It was signed into law, the implementation was delayed and then it was struck down.

Your initial question asked if same sex marriage was ever approved via legislation rather than by the courts. I gave several examples of which Maine was one. Had your question been "are there any states today that have legislative approved measures" the answer would have not included Maine.

In the context of your question my response was factual.

You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.
Yes, it's a swing state but also one with a large black population and deep Baptist roots.

So you're saying that vote that just happened a few days ago, no longer reflects the political tone in that state? That vote is antiquated already? If they took another vote today, the results would be different? That's what you're saying?

No, but if you look at trends I think the vote is running against the current of public opinion which is moving in the other direction as a Nation.

The constitutional bans on same sex marriage (and even civil unions in NC) are really only going to slow down the inevitable.

Obama said it very well when he announced his position. His daughters have friends with gay parents, why should they be treated differently than anyone else?

-spence

Quite frankly, all branches of government should be out of marriage. Regardless if you support or oppose gay marriage, far too many legislative resources are being allocated to something that is the least of our national problems.

Instead of this "social" issue, let's require our elected officials to get focused on *political* issues such as our still struggling economy, a GDP that's floundering like a 12lb bluefish that just jumped in your kayak, an ever-looming catastrophe sewn into a bed of national debt... these are thing things that actually will affect every man, woman and child in this country in the near term.

Would Gay Marriage generate more money or less for the Government (Fed and or local)?
Would there be more tax $$’s lost/gained (different way to file taxes (married jointly) etc.)
Would “common law” marriage apply to same sex couples after a certain time frame in some states?
Can they get divorced?
If divorced, does alimony / child support apply?
Do they take the others name?

Would you send a card addressed to Mr. & Mr. Smith or Mrs. & Mrs. Smith?
Would a dude buy a hope chest for another dude?
Would one groom have bridesmaids and the other have grooms men?

Yep, this pretty much says it all.

-spence

Yes sir, it's paying dividends for Obama already...

Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by seven points in new national poll - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/romney_leads_obama_by_seven_points_9aeGwPsCntTgIbX nFAQMhK?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=National)

Before anyone claims that Scott Rasmussen is biased, let's remember he correctly predicted the Obama rout in 2008.

Yep, this pretty much says it all.

-spence

That's a riot. Blacks hate it, they really really hate it, when bleeding heart liberals make this comparison. Blacks don't like it when you say "we let you peopl eget married, so we should let them".

who cares if there is marriage between man and man or woman and woman in todays world... I do not believe in it...so what...this is the 21st century

That's a riot. Blacks hate it, they really really hate it, when bleeding heart liberals make this comparison. Blacks don't like it when you say "we let you peopl eget married, so we should let them".
Regardless of if they like it or not, they're still not the majority effected. So, for the liberals, it's better to piss off the minority voting block and solidify support from the gay community. Let's face it, the minority vote isn't swinging to the GOP any time soon.

The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

-spence

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections (http://store.barackobama.com/collections/lgbt-for-obama.html)

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections (http://store.barackobama.com/collections/lgbt-for-obama.html)
Nope.

-spence

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections (http://store.barackobama.com/collections/lgbt-for-obama.html)

...which was also around in 2008

but lets not let facts get in the way of whining.

Regardless of if they like it or not, they're still not the majority effected. So, for the liberals, it's better to piss off the minority voting block and solidify support from the gay community. Let's face it, the minority vote isn't swinging to the GOP any time soon.

Johnny, I agree 100% that Obama's support of gay marriage isn't costing him any black votes. I was responding to Spence's claim (a common liberal claim) that gay marriage is analogous to civil rights for blacks. That's funny for 2 reasons. First, it was the Democrats who were opposed to Civil Rights for blacks. Second, blacks get deeply offended when liberal whites compare them, in this case, to homosexuals. If liberals cared as much about keeping blacks happy as they claim, they would stop making this comparison. Blacks really hate it.

First, it was the Democrats who were opposed to Civil Rights for blacks.

You should really expand on this thought...I could use a good laugh.

Please do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You should really expand on this thought...I could use a good laugh.

Please do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure. But it won't make you laugh.

I would have assumed you knew a tiny bit of factual history. Now we all know different. Another case of Spence ideology trumping facts.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

"Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight."

Can you read Spence? The efforts to block the Civil Rights Act were led by Al Gore Sr, and Robert Byrd. Democrats. D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S. That same Robert Byrd who the d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t-s made president of the Senate, thus third in line for the presidency. Swell, isn't it?

In the heydey of Southern segregation, the vast majority of governors in those states were Democrats.

Fast forward a few years. Arkansas Gov Oral Faubus (a Democrat) was ordered by President Eisenhower (a Republican) to let black kids attend school. Gov Faubus ( a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t) ordered the National Guard to stop the black kids from going to school. President Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st airborne to ensure those kids got to school. Read the story of the "Little Rock Nine".

George Wallace, governor of Alabama, ran for President. Big-time segregationist. And a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t.

Lester Maddox. Governor of Georgia. Big-time segregationist who endorsed George Wallace when Wallace ran for President. Maddox was a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-t.

Spence, you have shown here that you literally have no ability to process facts unless those facts fit your ideology.

Until now, i have never heard anyone, ever, deny that Democrats were primarily responsible for southern segregation. You are blinded, completely, by ideology. If Obama said that 2 plus 2 was 7, you would not have the wherewithal to disagree.

Are you laughing Spence? Are you? I'm not.

You should really expand on this thought...I could use a good laugh.

Please do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not done with you yet.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party)

From that link just above...when the Civil Rights Bill passed the Senate, the vote was 73-27. Of the 27 who were opposed, 21 were democrats, 6 were republicans.

The vote in the house was 289-126. Of the 126 reps who opposed, 91 were democrats, 31 were republicans.

Spence, based on what you said, I'm not sure if you can read or count. I'll make it simple. When I said that Democrats were primarily responsible for opposing the passage of the Civil Rights Act? I was 100% correct, you were 100% wrong.

Snack on that.

Here's a very important question Spence...do you still dispute my contention that the Democrats were primarily responsible for opposing Civil Rights legislation? Please respond directly...

You said you could use a good laugh. So, are you laughing? Or are you as embarassed as you should be?

Are you laughing Spence? Are you? I'm not.
:jester:

:rotf2:

:jump:

:laugha:

:lama:

:bs:

-spence

Johnny, I agree 100% that Obama's support of gay marriage isn't costing him any black votes. I was responding to Spence's claim (a common liberal claim) that gay marriage is analogous to civil rights for blacks. That's funny for 2 reasons. First, it was the Democrats who were opposed to Civil Rights for blacks. Second, blacks get deeply offended when liberal whites compare them, in this case, to homosexuals. If liberals cared as much about keeping blacks happy as they claim, they would stop making this comparison. Blacks really hate it.

Rewriting questions about marriage equality - Video on msnbc.com (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/47331974#47331974)


guess he didn't get the memo

:jester:

:rotf2:

:jump:

:laugha:

:lama:

:bs:

-spence

Really. That's how you respond to irrefutable fact thats that show that you're completely ignorant aon a vital part of our recent history? You say mu numbers are B.S.? Do you have different numbers showing that Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act?

Whatever floats your boat, Spence. I guess you better laugh as much as you can between now and November. You won't be laughing much after that.

Son is pitching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Son is pitching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When he's done, I look forward to you trying to explain why you have a shred of credibility left on this thread. You tell me why the Democrats weren't leading the opposition to the civil rights march. Hint - you can't do it by naming a few prominent democrats who were in favor of civil rights, because I didn't claim that zero democrats were pro-civil rights. What I said was, the vast majority of those blocking Civil Rights legislation back then, were Democrats. That's what I said. And after I posted the numbers, I cannot fathom how you can disagree.

I guess I just don't get this thread.I don't understand all these long winded replies.I already dumbed it down once but I guess I have to do it again:

OBAMA IS COURTING THE GAY COMMUNITY FOR VOTES.ITS CALLED PANDERING.Its that simple,nothing more and nothing less.

When he's done, I look forward to you trying to explain why you have a shred of credibility left on this thread. You tell me why the Democrats weren't leading the opposition to the civil rights march. Hint - you can't do it by naming a few prominent democrats who were in favor of civil rights, because I didn't claim that zero democrats were pro-civil rights. What I said was, the vast majority of those blocking Civil Rights legislation back then, were Democrats. That's what I said. And after I posted the numbers, I cannot fathom how you can disagree.
Your assertion was that it was "funny" for Democrats to make an analogy between civil rights and gay rights because it was "the Democrats who were opposed to civil rights for blacks".

This doesn't make any sense.

As you've wisely indicated (aka the preemptive back track :hihi:) not all Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Certainly so, the legislation was proposed by a Democratic President and passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.

Remember, Democrats in the south were originally advocates strong states rights and slavery as an economic necessity (i.e. at the time more conservative). This was the culture that persisted even as slavery was outlawed. The South's loyalty to their party kept many voting as Democrats until the Democratic party shifted further to the Left...and ultimately drove Southern Democrats to the Republican Party which is precisely why Southern states tend to vote Republican today.

Hell, perhaps the most vocal Democratic opponent to Civil Rights was Strom Thurmond...who switched parties and became a Republican in 1964.

Republicans did join ranks with Democrats and made the Civil Rights Act an example of bi-partisan legislation...back then...but we all know the Republican party has moved to the Right...characterized by Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Moral Majority and more recently the bastardization of even Ronald Reagan's legacy.

So I'm not sure what's all that funny about it. I guess it could be considered ironic, assuming you lacked a basic understanding of American history.

As for the black response, here's a pretty interesting take...

Is the black church guilty of spiritual hypocrisy in same-sex marriage debate? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/12/is-the-black-church-guilty-of-spiritual-hypocrisy-in-same-sex-marriage-debate/?iref=allsearch)

-spence

Your assertion was that it was "funny" for Democrats to make an analogy between civil rights and gay rights because it was "the Democrats who were opposed to civil rights for blacks".

This doesn't make any sense.

As you've wisely indicated (aka the preemptive back track :hihi:) not all Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Certainly so, the legislation was proposed by a Democratic President and passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.

Remember, Democrats in the south were originally advocates strong states rights and slavery as an economic necessity (i.e. at the time more conservative). This was the culture that persisted even as slavery was outlawed. The South's loyalty to their party kept many voting as Democrats until the Democratic party shifted further to the Left...and ultimately drove Southern Democrats to the Republican Party which is precisely why Southern states tend to vote Republican today.

Hell, perhaps the most vocal Democratic opponent to Civil Rights was Strom Thurmond...who switched parties and became a Republican in 1964.

Republicans did join ranks with Democrats and made the Civil Rights Act an example of bi-partisan legislation...back then...but we all know the Republican party has moved to the Right...characterized by Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Moral Majority and more recently the bastardization of even Ronald Reagan's legacy.

So I'm not sure what's all that funny about it. I guess it could be considered ironic, assuming you lacked a basic understanding of American history.

As for the black response, here's a pretty interesting take...

Is the black church guilty of spiritual hypocrisy in same-sex marriage debate? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/12/is-the-black-church-guilty-of-spiritual-hypocrisy-in-same-sex-marriage-debate/?iref=allsearch)

-spence

Spence, I didn't "backtrack" when I said some Democrats supported civil rights. I would never say anything so stupid as saying that zero democrats supportwed civil rights. Just because you but your foot in your mouth several times a day, don't assume everyone else wallows in ignorance too.

"ultimately drove Southern Democrats to the Republican Party which is precisely why Southern states tend to vote Republican today."

Correct. You finally got one right.

"Certainly so, the legislation was proposed by a Democratic President and passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. "

That's true, but midleading, and you know it. The Republicans were of course in the minority. But you keep dismissing the fact (gee, I wonder why) that a much larger percentage of Republicans voted for the bill, than Democrats. I'll repeat. Of the 27 Senators who voted against, 21 were Democrats. Of the 126 reps who voted against, 91 were Democrats. Talk about an inconvenient truth...for you, that is. You can't process facts that don't fit your agenda, even if those facts are 60 years old. Amazing.

Again, in typical liberal fashion, you assume blacks should support homosexuals because they too were discriminated against. Blacks don't see it that way, no matter how many times you look down your noses at them condescendingly, and smugly suggest otherwise.

"bi-partisan legislation...back then"

Ahhh. So you are implying that Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship anymore. Interesting. Spence, do me a favor, look back, and see who has been bi-oartisan with Supreme Court nominees, and which party is obstructionist? Republicans routinely confirm the most liberal justices nominated by Democrats (the voted to confirm Sotomayor and Ginsburg, for example). Remember what happened to Bush's nominee, Robert Bork. The Democrat refusal to confirm Bork was so partisan and unprecedented, it gave way to a new term, called "Borking". Bork, as an appellate judge, had never been overturned by a higher court. His confirmation was denied by Democrats. Sotomayor had been overturned many times, and she was confirmed. Interesting, if your mind isn't so closed off that you have to stick your head in the sand because it makes your side look reprehensible.

Again Spence, I know you want to believe that Democrats are always compromising, and that Republicans are always obstructing. If you could prove that, I'd support your assertion. But once again, you cannot.

But you keep dismissing the fact (gee, I wonder why) that a much larger percentage of Republicans voted for the bill, than Democrats.
Actually I gave a very clear and reasoned explanation.

Again, in typical liberal fashion, you assume blacks should support homosexuals because they too were discriminated against. Blacks don't see it that way, no matter how many times you look down your noses at them condescendingly, and smugly suggest otherwise.
Actually, the article points out that black leaders use the same biblical approach to condemn homosexuality as were used to promote slavery.

This is very interesting no?


Ahhh. So you are implying that Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship anymore. Interesting. Spence, do me a favor, look back, and see who has been bi-oartisan with Supreme Court nominees, and which party is obstructionist? Republicans routinely confirm the most liberal justices nominated by Democrats (the voted to confirm Sotomayor and Ginsburg, for example). Remember what happened to Bush's nominee, Robert Bork. The Democrat refusal to confirm Bork was so partisan and unprecedented, it gave way to a new term, called "Borking". Bork, as an appellate judge, had never been overturned by a higher court. His confirmation was denied by Democrats. Sotomayor had been overturned many times, and she was confirmed. Interesting, if your mind isn't so closed off that you have to stick your head in the sand because it makes your side look reprehensible.
Here you go again...taking something tangent to the conversation just to attempt a point nobody even asked you to make.

Sotomayor managed to get 9 Republican votes...and you're citing this as a bi-partisan accomplishment?

Wow.

As for real bi-partisan legislation, right now I don't believe it's possible unless perhaps it was related to national defense.

Again Spence, I know you want to believe that Democrats are always compromising, and that Republicans are always obstructing. If you could prove that, I'd support your assertion. But once again, you cannot.
I never claimed democrats were always compromising.

-spence

Jesus effing christ, let em get married already.
Everyone can take the religious/bigot/whatever excuses why they can't and get stuffed.

Marriage is a sham in this country with the rate of divorce. Where's the 'religious' outrage over that?

18 years for me tomorrow.
Great years
no sham

18 years for me tomorrow.
Great years
no sham

Exemplary...I'm nearing 10. :btu:

-spence

Going on 7 years this June, no sham here.

20 Years for me on Wednesday....

20 Years for me on Wednesday....

that's a great #...congrats!...19 years for me..

This is the President's Etch-a-Sketch moment. Now that the race is one on one they will both reposition themselves in the general election.
To the advisors it is a simple math problem....though evolving....to do and say whatever is needed to defeat each other. Every campaign is full of flip flops and every term served is full of empty campaign promises.
It's all about how gullible the voters can be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Marriage is a sham in this country with the rate of divorce. Where's the 'religious' outrage over that?

you are aware that the divorce rate has been steadily declining in this country and is currently at it's lowest level since 1970(albiet for a host of reasons) but you didn't mention any factors regarding the causes for the rate before declaring marriage a sham..

btw, if marriage is indeed a "sham", why would gay couples be so anxious to participate in a "sham"?

U.S. divorce rate declines, reason unclear
2012-03-17

By David Crary / The Associated Press
NEW YORK -- By the numbers, divorce just isn't what it used to be.

Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.

To the liberals who are making saints out of Obama and Biden for supporting gay marriage, here is #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney doing the same exact thing in 2009.

Video of the Day: #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney Endorsing Gay Marriage in 2009 - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/video-of-the-day-#^&#^&#^&#^&-cheney-endorsing-gay-marriage-in-2009/256961/)

No body here can really believe that OBAMA believes in gay marriges...U just do not change your mind over nite.....if he believed, why did he not mention that he was for gay marriges in 2008..2009..2010...2011

It is just a politcal ploy which I think has back fired...even some gays believe it is only a political move.

why not?

My position has changed through time. Young and dumb 10 years ago there is no way I would have thought it was right. Knowing one half of some very faithful lesbian couples that I worked with over the years has certainly changed my perspective on it.

No body here can really believe that OBAMA believes in gay marriges...U just do not change your mind over nite.....if he believed, why did he not mention that he was for gay marriges in 2008..2009..2010...2011
You don't? 6-7 years ago, I was a liberal and felt like taxes should be higher.

You don't? 6-7 years ago, I was a liberal and felt like taxes should be higher.

JD, :btu: yup, increasing age and expeience can lead to knowledge, wisdom and common sense. :D

rirockhound:
Like U it took me years to understand the gay and lesbian rights movement. I have a few gay friends too... So be it.... and as I stated in an earlier post I still do not believe in man marrying man or woman marrying woman....but with goofy Biden making the statement Obama comes out for gay marriages of which is only to get the gay vote.

you are aware that the divorce rate has been steadily declining in this country and is currently at it's lowest level since 1970(albiet for a host of reasons) but you didn't mention any factors regarding the causes for the rate before declaring marriage a sham..

btw, if marriage is indeed a "sham", why would gay couples be so anxious to participate in a "sham"?

The sanctity of marriage is a sham, sorry, I forgot everything had to be spelled out for you.

U.S. divorce rate declines, reason unclear
2012-03-17

By David Crary / The Associated Press
NEW YORK -- By the numbers, divorce just isn't what it used to be.

Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.


The 2012 Statistical Abstract: Births, Deaths, Marriages, & Divorces (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces.html)

Scroll down to the bottom, tell me, how many marriages were there vs divorces?

You guys still don't get it...this has nothing to do with gay marriage.

-spence

This is from one of those chain email things that has been going around for years. Whether it was actually sent to Dr. Laura Shropshireslasherer and whether the guy from U of V wrote it isn't clear, but the points are great. It's reference to those who use the bible to justify being anti-gay marriage. I am sure you all will appreciate the spirit of it :love:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my
neighbours.....They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary
that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to
stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a
private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their
in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian

This is from one of those chain email things that has been going around for years. Whether it was actually sent to Dr. Laura Shropshireslasherer and whether the guy from U of V wrote it isn't clear, but the points are great. It's reference to those who use the bible to justify being anti-gay marriage. I am sure you all will appreciate the spirit of it :love:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Apparently, God has changed His mind, and so the Bible was revised and updated with what some call The New Testament. It is very progressive, and from the frame of mind that your questions suggest, you would probably like this revision--it is SO 21st century, filled with love and caring for the poor and such. And . . . can you imagine . . . a whole nation was founded on various principles and beliefs in the combined version of old and new testaments. It even, eventually, abolished slavery.

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

There are other countries that have not heard of, nor subscribe to, this revision and you could probably sell her in those places. The price could be tricky. If you do not follow their version, the price may be your head.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.

With most women, you can usually tell when they are in this unclean period, as they are often more cranky than usual and not so attractive as such. I take it you're a bit of a clod that you have not caught on to this state of affairs even though you have asked several (most women). Perhaps they are mostly taking offense to your stupidity?

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my
neighbours.....They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?

Your neighbors are, unlike you, probably being polite. Rather than suggesting that you're rather odd in having an outdoor alter on your property and burning animals on it, they merely mention the odor. Of course, if they knew you were contemplating smiting them, they might actually tell you how crazy you are and would endeavor to have you put in more secure surroundings. For your good as well as theirs. I take it that your city has not evolved into modern ways such as codes against burning on open alters in residential areas?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

Again, you might refer to the amended portion called The New Testament. Technically, police will only respond after the killing has occurred rather than doing the killing themselves. Of course, if they do respond to someone who is being threatened by the likes of you, they might, inadvertantly kill you. But that's not what your looking for. And, for such reasons, many feel the need to arm themselves. So you might be careful about the smiting thing . . . you might encounter someone with a 30 round clip, and . . well . . . the smiting may become unpleasant for you.

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

Of course there are, as witnessed by the degree to which you have descended.

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?

Your vision is so myopic that you might not safely cross the street, much less try to wiggle your way into contact with other people . . . or God.

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

Probably from the laughter evinced by your sincere ignorance.

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

You do seem to be stuck on Leviticus. Try to peruse some of the other books including the updated version. The Bible HAS been considered to evoke beautiful literary content as well as its religious merit. But if you must wallow in Leviticus, as pig-headed people might do, I suggest you stay away from contact sports, since well muscled athletes with usual sports mentality tend to punish behaviour that deviates too far from the norm.

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary
that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to
stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a
private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their
in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian

AHHHH . . . I see that Leviticus has twisted you into a caricature of reason and intellect that tilts at windmills. Your errant quest to fight God's battles is ill equipped. You cannot comprehend God. And no book of the Bible will enlighten you. Scholars have studied all the scripts and still do not "know" totally the word of God.

They "know" of a presence, but cannot truly name it, nor fully understand.

So you may mock the Word, as it has been translated by man, and so is imperfect. As is imperfect all of man's endeavors and his quest for knowledge. His "science" keeps naming existence but has yet to give a fully comprehensive description. It seems, even, that his attempt to see distorts the picture. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge has made us ignorant that the word of God IS Creation, and that "eternal" is incomprehensible to us, the created. And if the nexus between God and science is essence, then that essence must be unchanging. If it is not, then we can never know it.