I whole-heartedly agree. But it's time to let it go. Gore, I mean.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at January 23, 2008 01:39 PMHuh? Everyone knows there's no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore!
Posted by andgarden at January 23, 2008 01:41 PMIs this a youtube or something? It's not showing up!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 23, 2008 01:50 PMThis guy couldn't win today, he won't answer questions. He doesn't have the patience to go through a primary season and he doesn't have the energy to last through it. It would be my joy to see him run again, to see him fail again, and he would, many of you knows he would.
Posted by peter at January 23, 2008 02:00 PMCoyote, it's called "Current".
Posted by peter at January 23, 2008 02:02 PMIt would be my joy to see him run again, to see him fail again...
This is the sentiment that exposes you and your ilk for the low-lifes that you are peter.
Posted by snark at January 23, 2008 02:02 PMThe Leadership No Candidate Dares Offer
Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt a candidate Gore would say all that. I don't think any candidate (except those who know they don't have chance) say they're for gay marriage.
Posted by CG at January 23, 2008 02:29 PMThe people are being robbed of due process by our elected "representatives". If you or I or any other average citizen was in contempt of Congress, you better believe something would happen, and fast. This Executive Branch can apparently get away with anything it wants, and they'll probably all get immunity.
Posted by Barbara at January 23, 2008 04:18 PMI am with Gore on this issue, but the timing is strange, isn't it, given how destructive the issue has been in recent elections for Dems?
Posted by at January 23, 2008 04:19 PMHuh? Everyone knows there's no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore!
andgarden, please explain that comment, if you can.
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2008 04:46 PMjudith,
he was being sarcastic about the media and nader narrative from 2000.
Posted by Turkana at January 23, 2008 05:02 PMI don't understand who made marriage the business of government. In my view, the govenment should grant civil union licenses to all who want to enter into a committed, legally binding relationship, regardless of sexual orientation.
Marriage should be defined by religious institutions. If they don't want to grant marriages to gays....fine. Gays can shun that religion. But the government should not descriminate against same sex unions by denying them equal rights with respect to legal rights granted to heterosexual unions.
When I got "married", I went to the Catholic Church my mother belongs to out of respect for her wishes. When I told them that I didn't intend to raise my children Catholic, they (rightly so) asked me what was the point?
My wife of 21 years and I got hitched in a Unitarian Universalist Church and have been active Unitarians ever since. BTW, gays are welcomed and accepted in our Church to our benefit.
"Electable" candidates can't afford to be honest about their opinions. Welcome to America. But not if you're undocumented.
Posted by Sharon at January 23, 2008 07:12 PMI've been with my partner for sixteen years. We own a house together and are financially dependent on each other. We really, really need legal recognition and federal benefits.
Thanks for posting this, Turkana.
Posted by xht at January 23, 2008 07:17 PMIt seems like you people here have no regard for the founding fathers and the ethics in which this nation were created. Many Americans still support those values and reject this same sex stuff as being just downright wrong. A marraige is between a man and a woman. Churches that accept the gay lifestyle have lost their way, but then again I doubt if people here take any stock in what God has to say - you know, in that book called the Bible - the one that proclaims the morality that this nation was founded on and that you reject (or select just the parts that meet your needs).
I know you all hate people like me, but you know what I hate? I hate that my traditional values were expunged from public schools in the name of diversity and separation of church and state and the liberal agenda has replaced those values with their own. I have as much right as anyone else to instruct my children in the ethics of my forefathers. And I don't appreciate the public schools trying to undo my efforts by teaching my children that the gay/lesbian lifestyle is a perfectly acceptable alternative to traditional marriage. Why did traditional values have to be removed from our schools just to be replaced by someone else's agenda? The traditional American values are not a religion. Even though they may be based on religious teachings, they are simply a value system like the one that has replaced it. BTW, what exactly is the liberal agenda's value system based on?
Another BTW, are conservative viewpoints allowed to be posted on this blog?
Posted by David Dilworth at January 28, 2008 11:35 AM