Mass. supreme court decision could be VERY bad

[ringmastery]

Remember Dubya wants a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. 37 states have DOMA acts. Getting 75% of legislatures to pass this will NOT be a problem.

I much rather they have come back with civil unions. baby steps. gay marriage would have come sooner or later in due time. But that time is not NOW.

I'm afraid people may have won the battle, only to lose the war.

[Bertha Venation]

1. Check my sig line.

I'm not joking. They will have to kill me before they take away my right to marry.

"I much rather they have come back with civil unions. baby steps. gay marriage would have come sooner or later in due time. But that time is not NOW."

Did MLK, Jr. and his followers accept "separate but equal?" Because that's what you're advocating.

[PVnRT]

24. All marriages should be civil unions

in the eyes of the government. Marriage is whatever ceremony you choose to signify that you are married, spiritual, religious, whatever. No more seperate but equal, and we move our government back towards the secular end of the spectrum again.

[Bertha Venation]

27. Agreed: I use the word "marriage" because

in today's U.S., it connotes exactly what I demand: equal protection of the law. U.S. law says "marriage" -- not "civil union."

[PVnRT]

65. Which is unfortunate

It probably just goes back to older times, when no one really though of it being anything other than a man marrying a woman. This needs to change.

[59millionmorons]

2. not really

All of our main candidates are against gay marriage.

[Bertha Venation]

7. "against gay marriage"

And they should be ashamed of themselves!

They are all FOR some form of separate-but-equal arrangement, and I fear that's what we're gonna get in the beginning, but still, they should be ashamed of themselves for not having the balls to go all the way right now, right off the bat.

Kerry, IMO, is the biggest loser in this regard. Several months ago he said he is against gay marriage because marriage is for having children and obviously gays can't have children. My partner supported him until that point. It's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard uttered on the subject; to hear it from Senator John Kerry was astounding and deeply disappointing.

[afraid_of_the_dark]

16. If marriage is for having children....

Then post-menopausal women shouldn't get married?
Couples who are "childless by choice" shouldn't get married?
Men and women who cannot reproduce (like sterility, etc.) should not get married?

I guess I just don't understand the distinction - unless you are discriminating against someone for their sexual preference.

Shame on Kerry.

[Bridget Burke]

18. Kerry had 2 children from his first marriage, but

The current marriage has produced none.

[polmaven]

26. May I ask a question?

I'm not trying to marginalize anything. I truly believe the MA SJC has made a courageous and correct decision.

The hang-up, according to homophobes, is the word "marriage" being used, because "marriage" is "traditionally" between one man and one woman. There was a big demonstration here in MA last week...Some Catholic school children were at the State House sporting signs like..."It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"...Well, OK...I appreciate that the Catholic church is against same gender marriage..and they have every right to refuse to perform marriages within their own ranks. The United Methodist church has, fairly recently, taken a huge step backward regarding homosexuality as well.

My question (to get to the premise of my subject) is this...What does the GLBT think of the government getting out of the marriage business altogether, and calling all secular licenses, regardless of the gender of the partners, civil unions, or something similar, and leaving the word "marriage" to the religious institutions?

I'm sure the right would howl like stuck pigs, which would show their true colors, no?

I am a single, hetero woman, who never married. I am looking to my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to let me know if I am way off base. I know that, if it is called something different, it will always BE something different. I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding what the homophobes have such HUGE hangups on this.

[Bertha Venation]

28. Of course.

As I said to Jack'sSmirkingRevenge, I use the word "marriage" because it connotes exactly what I demand: equal protection of the law. U.S. law says "marriage" -- not "civil union."

I also use the word because I am married, before my family and friends and before God (we're both followers of Christ).

Now to your question re: the gov't getting out of the "marriage" biz altogether: absolutely.

Make every "marriage" a civil union, because that's what they actually are. I don't care if 98% of the religious institutions in this country think I'm a hell-bound pervert and that my marriage will corrupt America's youth and whatever other ugly crap they can come up with -- I don't care. Quit denying me equality under the law -- which in the U.S. can have nothing to do with any religion -- and you can hate me all you want.

I'm happy to discuss further but have to go right now....

[southerngirlwriter]

36. I hear you, Bertha V.

My freeper mother FREAKS when she hears "gay marriage." I finally figured out that she thinks that HER CHURCH would be REQUIRED to allow gay couples to marry there.

I set her straight -- her pastor, for example, will not marry any couple who doesn't do premarital counseling. He can refuse to marry any couple for any reason he wants. NO WAY would "gay marriage" require her and her Ladies' Auxiliary to vacuum up the sanctuary in preparation for a "gay marriage."

She said, "Then what do they care about it for, then?"

I talked at length about hospital visitation, survivor rights, blah blah blah. I said that all gay couples want is the same privileges she gets for being married to her husband -- for the marriage CONTRACT. "And this is America, isn't it, Mom? Why should the government have the right to say who you can and cannot enter into a CONTRACT with, huh?"

She didn't swear off her former position, but she immediately stopped ranting and seemed to really think about it.

My mother is ignorant, but not stupid. I wonder how many others are so vehement about it because they think *their particular churches* would be performing gay marriages?

[pinto]

29. the Mass SJ Court statement gets to your point. Since there is hetero

secular, legal "marriage" the Mass State Constitution forbids the State to deny equality under the law, hence, gay secular, legal "marriage". If it was called something different than religious union, it would probably be less a touch stone issue (???) but it's what we've got. Again, I think the Mass SJC viewed this strictly as a constitutional issue....thanks for the question. pinto

[SoCalDem]

3. Is it any coincidence that Kerry is from Mass??and this happens NOW

This is the raw chicken guts that will bring out the faithful to vote..

They might have been ho-hum on * , but this will invigorate them..:(

Rove will spin this as "northe eastern liberals telling "tehm" that they have to accept something that their bible tells them is wrong.. Those NE liberals trying to push them around again..

bad...bad...bad...

Kerry or Dean cannot win this one...because they are too close to Mass

Isn't politics screwy??

[Rockholm]

5. CNN's Coverage Was Extremely Good and....

Their reporter in New York summed the issue up pretty good. She stated that Massachusetts takes their Constitution very seriously. That we in Mass take civil rights very seriously. I live in Massachusetts and look forward to May 17th. This is a constitutional issue. Remember the Equal Rights Amendment never got passed. Women are not equal, remember that. When the fundies and right wingers get going, we will be able to frame it as what the issue is. Amendments to the US Constitution should not be used to disenfranchise Americans.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

30. I'm Very Happy for my gay friends

a couple we know are making arrangements for a Provincetown wedding in June!

I am proud of my state standing up for its Constitution. The Mass. legislature announced there would be NO amendments to the Constitution. Marty Meehan spoke for the Mass Dems on the radio today saying we have 'more important issues like the economy' to focus on, rather than trying to deny rights to a segment of the population.

[aquart]

38. Bet it doesn't bring out Republicans.

The gay issue is about to get swamped, no matter how hard BushCo tries to pump it up, they LIED. Our soldiers keep dying because of those lies. We are a nation without honor now, and we are used to believing that we are the MOST honorable nation, true or not.

Bush can cry to Jesus, but he lied.

[Kazak]

43. Psht..I hardly think this means...

Kerry or Dean "cannot win". That's just asisnine.

[Democrats unite]

4. Baby steps are for babies

I am not asking for what is due me, I am demanding! Lets take away some rights for heterosexuals See how they like it. Then we will talk about baby steps.

[ringmastery]

6. well what would you rather have

civil unions for the next 10 or 15 years and then slow gay marriage as inevitably the culture changes and the old racists and bigots die off and are replaced by the younger more open minded generations....

or a constitutional amendment locking you out of marriage for the next 50 years until it is repealed?

[Democrats unite]

9. Equal right under the Law

Isn't that what the Constitution says? I will settle for nothing less & will fight till my dying breath to see it achieved!

[Bertha Venation]

13. their FMA is not going to pass

so your question is moot.

Still, I will fight it for all I'm worth.

[Silverhair]

47. It won't??? Wishful thinking. Look at some Brutal Facts.

66% of Americans are against gay marriage. Most of the those for it are already Democrats. That leaves the center voters and the Republicans almost completely against. For some of the swing voters this will be an important emotional hot button issue, and will push them into voting Rep.

Among Blacks, 75% are against it. Latinos are almost completely Roman Catholics, and the famous Latino machismo has little tolerance for gays. If even one in 20 of these groups vote Rep over this, then we lose the election.

The Reps control ALL of the committees and will be able to bring the amendment to a floor vote in congress. That means every Democrat in congress will have to vote or duck the vote. If they vote against the amendment in an election year, they will have to immediately face the voters. If they duck the vote, then they anger some of their base. For the Reps, it is a safe vote. Prediction: It will pass congress handily. After all, the DOMA passed and was signed by Clinton.

Also, 37 states have state DOMAs. Ratification should be easy. Most states have Rep controlled state legislatures, and it can be quickly brought to a floor vote in those states - great for putting Democrat state legislatures on the hot seat.

W & Rove should be down on their knees thanking their God for this magnificent election year gift.

[foreigncorrespondent]

48. But... (didn't you know there is ALWAYS a but?)

...the majority of the people are AGAINST using the constitution as a tool to deem a group people as second class citizens.

[Silverhair]

49. Then I guess we will see how it plays out.

It will absolutely be an election issue.

[foreigncorrespondent]

50. So what if it is an election issue.

It is about damn time that someone did something to make the United States equal for all of her citizens.

If the dems hold their heads high and say; "Yes we support the issue of marriage equality for all" and then move onto the actual issues which do affect the majority of Americans, then people might begin to understand that there is indeed bigger things to worry about than who wants to marry who.

[Silverhair]

51. You and I obviously see this differently.

I see this issue as having only bad news for Democrats.
You see it as a winning issue for Democrats.
So we shall see how it plays out in the months to come.

BTW - Before anybody starts calling me a homophobe or bigot, (So far no one has.)I am predicting - not advocating - what will happen. I view myself as somewhat like a military person saying that an attack will not succeed and why, even though others want to launch the attack.

[djg21]

60. I agree.

The timing of this decision is most unfortunate. It will be the touchstone social issue in the upcoming election, it will be used to mobilize the right, it will be used to distract attention from more significant major issues (just like the flag burning amendment, etc.), and it will be used to bolster claims about "activist judges." This was a gift to ShrubCo. All the Dems can do now is attempt to diffuse the issue. This is very bad!

[Bertha Venation]

8. AMEN!

What are our non-understanding heterosexual DUers (because clearly, most of them fully understand us on this issue) willing to give up in order to spend a day in our shoes?

[nostamj]

10. what business does government have in preserving

a "SACRED INSTITUTION" ??? (McCellon's words from today's "press conference")

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. Equal protection under law, or 2nd class citizens, theocracy or secular

Bring it on!

[mark414]

12. questions for heteros

myself, i am a heterosexual. but i most definitely am an ally to the LGBT community. oppression in ANY form is bad, and we will not take "baby steps" to get rid of it. it needs to go, now. in the meantime, here are some questions for all my fellow heteros to answer:

1.) What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2.) When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?

3.) Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

4.) Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?

5.) Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

6.) Heterosexuals have histories of failure in gay relationships. Do you think that you may have turned to heterosexuality out of fear of rejection?

7.) If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know that you wouldn't prefer that?

8.) If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?

9.) To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?

10.) Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try and force it on me. Why do you people feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?

11.) If you should choose to nurture children, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?

12.) The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?

13.) Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet?

14.) How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexual object choice, and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, healthy, God-given homosexual potential?

15.) Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly-restricted, stereotyped sex roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?

16.) How can you enjoy a fully satisfying sexual experience or deep emotional rapport with a person of the opposite sex, when the obvious physical, biological and temperamental differences between you are so vast? How can a man understand what pleases a women sexually, or vice-versa?

17.) Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

18.) With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

see, doesn't that sound ridiculous when put in that context? and LGBT people hear bullshit like that every day. equal (and never separate) rights today!

[Bertha Venation]

15. Welcome to DU

:hi:
Always great to meet new Friendlies. TY.

[mark414]

17. and nice to meet you

pleasure is all mine

[Carl Spackler]

23. answers from a hetero

First let me say that I think "civil unions" are a cop-out. If you believe homosexuality is not morally wrong, denying marriage is indefensible.

1.) What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
God.

2.) When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?
Around age 12, looking through the J.C. Pennys catalog woman's underwear section.

3.) Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
I don't know, but it's manifested itself in a neurotic fixation on others of the opposite sex, a fixation often discussed in detail with others of the same sex.

4.) Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?
Yeah, I hear impotence comes next :(

5.) Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?
Pretty happy with my good non-gay lover

6.) Heterosexuals have histories of failure in gay relationships. Do you think that you may have turned to heterosexuality out of fear of rejection?
um, no.

7.) If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know that you wouldn't prefer that?
In the words of a famous hetero - "that kinda thing's not my bag, baby!"

8.) If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?
Because women just mess with a guy's head.

9.) To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?
My wife is OK with it.

10.) Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try and force it on me. Why do you people feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?
I have no desire to change anyone's orientation.

11.) If you should choose to nurture children, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?
Yes. Hoping for grandchildren.

12.) The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?
No, we homeschool.

13.) Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet?
Actually I'm quite discreet about it.

14.) How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexual object choice, and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, healthy, God-given homosexual potential?
I'm perfectly happy not exploring lots of things - skydiving and veganism for examples.

15.) Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly-restricted, stereotyped sex roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?
Because I like it.

16.) How can you enjoy a fully satisfying sexual experience or deep emotional rapport with a person of the opposite sex, when the obvious physical, biological and temperamental differences between you are so vast? How can a man understand what pleases a women sexually, or vice-versa?
It's the idea of being complimentary, yin to my yang and so forth.

17.) Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
Because it's fun?

18.) With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
I suspect it's because we're all a little screwed up and just trying to get through our own lives as best we can

[mark414]

45. umm

you missed the point

[Carl Spackler]

53. Just bored.

[newyawker99]

35. Hi mark414!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mark414]

44. technically...

i'm not a newbie, i've been coming to this site for the past year and a half or so. just never got involved in the forums. i'll let you off on the technicality though.

[Mari333]

14. GOP yells about states rights and then when a state decides

to use states rights, they scream and yell..
too bad..
they usurped states rights in the Florida 2000 debacle, and if they start screaming about denying states rights now tell them to shove it.
Massachusetts has a majority of voters for gay marriage. If people dont like it they can just go through the legal process.

[Cocoa]

19. it could be very good, too

it could provoke a high-profile conflict at the federal level in which the bigots get creamed. I tend to think that's the way this would play out, and so I think Bush will not push this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Are you kidding?

Most U.S. states are not ready for gay marriage. This will FORCE THEM to accept it if it stands. This is a homerun for the GOP.

[LeahMira]

20. No to the "baby steps"

I much rather they have come back with civil unions. baby steps.

I disagree. Particularly with issues where emotions are involved, legislators are not eager to revisit a controversial issue over and over.

It might be easier to get a compromise piece of legislation passed now, but it's almost a guarantee that the legislators aren't going to propose a bill on the same issue again for at least ten years if not more.

It's human nature. This group has wrestled with it. They have other business to get on with. Plus, they aren't anxious to read the letters or hear the dire warnings and accusations come election time. So, it won't be until the current group is pretty much retired or has moved on that you're going to get another bill on gay marriage even considered.

Tell your legislators exactly what you want. Help them write the actual bill if you can, or give them your input on the wording, etc. at least. Have a bottom line position and tell them that if compromises are made to that bottom line you want them to pull the bill, or you will pull your support and wind up their biggest critic.

Plenty of people who want to limit your rights will tell you to "be reasonable." Don't. Be as "unreasonable" as you have to be when it comes to insisting on your basic human rights. You won't always win, but you won't ever lose.

[adriennel]

21. oh gee, another marginalizing post

I totally agree with Bertha. And all the candidates are against gay marriage, and this is pathetic!!! Let's just all wait until gay marriage is no longer a controversial issue (note: homosexuality will always be a controversial subject for some, in the same vein that some people still can't accept interracial couples.)

I don't want a candidate who prefers to go along with the status quo rather than protect civil rights. In fact, one of my biggest problems with BushCo is the attempted murder of American civil liberties. The Dems are really letting me down in this instance. I'm waiting for one of them to stand up and say, "this is discrimination. we cannot afford certain populations rights that we deny others." hello? equal protection under the law? this is neither controversial, nor a matter for the states to solve individually, it's in the Constitution and not providing equal protection of the law is unconstitutional.

and for goodness sake, someone please tell the media and PR people that marriage is NOT "the world's oldest institution". I don't know where this piece of BS came from but I'm sick of hearing it.

[Mairead]

34. "And all the candidates are against gay marriage"

Dennis Kucinich isn't. He's for absolute legal equality across the board.

One more reason why those who don't support him with money and votes are selling themselves out.

[notbush]

58. Cus' I wanna know

Our candidates suck on this issue......except DK

[David__77]

22. Oh well...

Frankly, Brown vs. Board of Education hurt Democrats too. It laid the basis for splitting up the old FDR coalition. But it was right and just. We have to uphold justice.

Young people under 30 are supportive of marriage equality. If the GOP wants to lay all its chips on this, they will have problems down the road.

[Forkboy]

25. Fuck that

they derserve this NOW.

[buddhamama]

31. the Time is long past due.

n/t

[Liberalboy]

32. I really don't care

what you call it. Call it a Civil Union, call it Marriage, call it Dogshit - just give me the same rights that Britany Spears got after she married her hometown buddy in a druken stupor....thats all I want. The fundies and repukes can keep the word marriage for themselves.

[ulysses]

33. if you wait for the right political time, it'll never come.

President Asshat wants an amendment? Let's push for one of our own declaring gays eligible for all the rights accorded married heteros under the law.

[K-W]

37. That is flawed logic though,

it would be nice to live in a world where everytime was the righttime to make things better, but if the end result of pushing now is an ammendment that takes the entire deal off the table, that wouldnt be a good result. Sure seperate but equal was not right, but I think it was probably a neccessary step on the way to legally equal.

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. Has anyone heard what Bush* has said...

...since they decided to stand by their decision of marriage and not civil unions?

[K-W]

40. Im guessing he will probably touch on it far too much on sunday.

He doesnt have much else to talk about these days.

[area51]

54. What Bush* has said.

A page on the CNN website said Bush said about the MA Supreme Court ruling:

"Bush responded Wednesday evening to a decision in support of gay marriage by Massachusetts' highest court by calling the ruling 'deeply troubling.'"

"'Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,' Bush said in a statement. 'If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.'"

[foreigncorrespondent]

56. Thanks, area51. (n/t)

[alarimer]

41. I don't know

It sounds like they made the right decision to me. Our US Constitution has an equal protection clause. To me that means equal protection for everyone, gay, straight, whatever. Our candidates are a little too wishy-washy on this subject. Part of the problem I believe are the words we use. If you ask someone if they are in favor of "gay marriage" they likely will say no. But if you ask them if gay couples who are willing to commit themselves to each other (civil unions or whatever you choose to call it) deserve the same rights as straights who do the same thing (like visting their loved ones in the hospital) people might say yes. In fact I bet most people would say yes. I find it appalling that they don't have those rights already. Seems like a slam-dunk to me. Give everyone the same rights as everyone else already.

[arewethereyet]

42. makes for a great rallying cry for the right

and it all cranks up in May, how convenient !

Wonder how much that action by the court cost the GOP ?

[Silverhair]

46. And cost us this election in the process.

We could end up losing a some seats in the senate & congress over this.

[Silverhair]

52. It may cause a split in the Democratic Party.

I am convinced that the Reps will be able to use this as a highly effective wedge issue that will cost us the election and some seats in the senate and house that we might otherwise have kept. If we go down to a massive defeat in 04, many in the party will blame the gays for not being patient. It could be a nasty backlash inside the party.

[foreigncorrespondent]

55. That kind of attitude...

...practically guarantees just such a backlash.

[Silverhair]

62. Just looking at the facts.

Wishful thinking will not make a tornado change it's path. If this issue causes major defeats in the coming election, there will be a lot of anger directed toward the gays by Democrats. Look how angry Democrats are at the Greens & at Nader. Remember - Democrats are pro-environmentalism yet they are hopping mad at a group of environmentalists because they made the 2000 election close enough to steal.

[foreigncorrespondent]

66. Yes, let's look at the FACTS!

The democratic party has been milking the LGBT community for their votes, by giving them little drops in the ocean. The moment things actually begin to look good for the LGBT community (i.e: the Mass. Supreme Court ruling, and the overturn of the sodomy laws) what did we see here on DU? I will tell you, "Oh that is just great, now this will cost the dems the election in '04." When what should have been said is; "Well it is about damn time. Now as a heterosexual person (who by the way didn't choose to be a heterosexual) I stand by and support the courts rulings, and my fellow citizens."

Now let us take a look at the hard political FACTS shell we?

Where to begin? Hmmm! I know:

Bush* lied and citizens of the United States died! (i.e: Iraq war)

9/11 happened on Bush*s watch, and instead of going after Osama BEEN FORGOTTEN, he left it alone and went after Saddam. Someone who had absolutely NOTHING what so ever to do with 9/11. So Bush* let 3000 deaths be for NOTHING but OIL!

On Bush*s watch Californians got ripped off billions because of (made to happen) power shortages.

On Bush*s watch the economy went down the tubes, and millions are unemployed. With lots being without unemployment cheques, or any form of income whatsoever.

Bush* stole the election in 2000. (Let's not forget that little bit of FACT, <sarcasm> but it is ok to blame the Greens. </sarcasm> )

Now I know there is a lot more that Bush* has done, but I don't really wish to go into that, because you should already know it all.

Now, if the dems would bloody well get their heads out of their asses and begin focussing on the REAL issues, and stop worrying about a bloody court ruling that makes people EQUAL, maybe, they will get their message across about how wrong Bush* is, and begin actually winning elections again.

[notbush]

57. Which major dem candidates

openly say they support gay marriage?

[foreigncorrespondent]

59. Kucinich does! (n/t)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

61. again we are allowing the repukes to dictate what the election issue will

be! this is "gay marriage" is a WEAPON OF MASS DISTRACTION.....simply a Rove/bush agenda to distract from all of bush*S "MISERABLE FAILURES"!!! and we appear to be swallowing it hook line and fucking sinker!

The Mass REPUKE Gov.Mitt Romney you can be sure is behind making this the #1 issue for the country for the re-selection of Satan's Son

WAKE UP! STOP TALKING ABOUT IT and PLEASE PLEASE start Screaming "OSP! CHENEY/RUMSFELD CREATED THE "SECERT" OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS INSIDE THE PENTAGON THAT GAVE BAD INTEL DIRECTLY TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT BEING VETTED BY THE CIA, DIA!

sorry for yelling

sigh

[Silverhair]

63. So you propose to ignore it?

Yep, if the Democrats don't talk about it then the issue will go away? Get real. The Reps aren't "making" it an issue, they have discovered it as an issue that plays to them and will certainly use it.

So how do you propose to defuse it as an issue when the FMA comes to a floor vote in congress?