All of those gay cowboys we've been hearing about apparently decided to stay home on Tuesday. A whopping 75 percent of Texas voters approved an amendment to the Lone Star State's constitution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. No shock: Americans have always defined marriage this way. Someone give the national media the memo: banning gay marriage is not "divisive" or "controversial." It is rare in politics to get 3 out of 4 people to agree on anything, so when such overwhelming percentages approve a measure, that measure is a unifier and not a divider. In passing a constitutional amendment banning so-called gay marriage, Texans join voters in 19 other states who have passed similar measures. No state's voters, in contrast, have approved of redefining marriage to include homosexual unions. Get a clue liberals: nineteen to nothing is not divisive. Gay marriage is.

Amen Dan...Amen.

A local liberal talk show guy was spouting off the other day asking 'why should people care that gays want to marry?'. As if, what's the big deal? My question back at him would be, why do gays care so much about it that they keep pushing it even though it's obvious that a majority don't agree with them? What's the big deal?

The MA legislature approved gay marriage didn't they?

Funny Obi Juan. The Mass Legislature decided to allow themselves to be ruled by a chick in a black robe, so no it didn't reflect the will of the people of the state. In fact, they should never have done that. Apparently, however, groveling before tyranny is now second nature for the elected representatives of the state that gave us the Boston Tea Party, Liberty Trees, and the Minutemen.

Nice though to see definitive proof that the drill instructor in Full Metal Jacket was wrong. Texas is filled with steers and real men.

Dan
This is your post election day comment?
Gay marriage in Texas?

How about...Oil company Executives tesifying before Congress today?
Democrats had wanted the executives to testify under oath, but Republicans rejected the idea.
Any thoughts?

Thought: RC is a moron.

Yes Snowball, it is true that it took only the opinion of one elitist judge to skirt the legislative process and to press gay marriage on the prisoners who are the citizens of Massachusetts.

The Globe reported on this like it was the result of an overwhelming sweep of support for GM. This couldn't be any further from the truth.

In fact, any referendums that were proposed to allow the voting public to have their say were shut down post haste. Had a real binding poll been taken, I'm pretty sure we would have followed Texas on this issue.

Why would the oil execs be put under oath before a congressional committee? That smacks of needless grandstanding by Dems, hypocritical given their universal (and constantly cinematically represented, most recently by Clooney) loathing of the HUAC committee of yesteryear and its purported intimidation tactics regarding witnesses called before it.

Dems need to cease opposition to drilling where oil could be found, such as in Alaska, if they are serious about helping ease the supply strain of oil.

Gay marriage in Massachusetts was the result of a collusion between the legislative leadership, the gay/lesbian legal lobby, and the members of the Massachusetts judiciary. While the Goodridge case was wending its way through the courts, a ballot initiative was in the hands of the state's constitutional convention and the leadership through legislative ledgedermain closed the convention before the initiative could be voted on, thus derailing the amendment.

Brian
Do you remember not long ago when Mark McGwire, Rafeal Palmiero and Sammy Sosa and the other ballplayers testified before Congress about Steriods. They were all under oath! Why Ballplayers and not Oil company executives?

Why ballplayers or oil executives? Here are my posts from March on congressmen overstepping their Constitutional bounds by coralling famous ballplayers to testify in order to give the congressmen a publicity rub.

http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/sports2005/baseball_comes_to_dca_month_early.html

http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/sports2005/say_it_aint_so_2005.html

Looks like the Senate hearings with the oil companies resembled a Mafia meeting. "Nice business you got there, wouldn't want anything to happen to it would we..."

I am so sick of this type of political grandstanding in a free nation. We ought to hang the senators who thought this one up.