Republicans branching out to old Dem stronghold.

I think the most important point here is that there are no Republicans that will pick up the mike openly defend the gay crowd with a rousing hear, hear from all the other Republican in the crowd to back it up!! Until this happens, anything that is whispered and the talk of inclusion instead of acceptance is lip service to only persuade votes!

Bill

That is also true. One can be quite sure that even if a speaker at the convention/9-11 bastardization event were to express his/her desire to openly welcome gays, there is no chance in hell it would be allowed. Still, the times are changing and this is reflected within that party as well, if too slowly and too little.

Yes -- the idea that they depend on the press for the privilege of taking a stand in the open would be kind of ridiculous. Someone needed to speak out firmly against Santorum.. and didn't. The Republican Party may be a good deal weaker than we perceive it to be, held together by a lasso tossed by Rove. Once the awkward White House lies get tougher to sweep under the rug, we may see a process of disassociation from omerta.

It always mystifies me that people seem to think that the Supremes act as some pontifical college, decreeing law by fiat from on High. Liberal or Conservative, when a majority opinion of the court gores someone's particular ox, they decry the action as though it had occurred in some legalistic void.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Basically stated, applying the Fourth Amendment says keep yer nose outta my bedroom, and applying the Fourteenth Amendment says that if yer gonna let married couples "rump-wrestle," ya gotta let ever body do it. You'd have had a stronger case to make by objecting to the Supremes striking down Georgia's sodomy law, which prohibited sodomy without reference to "sexual orientation"--although your argument against the Court's action would still be very weak indeed, in view of the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . . "

Yeah, but the wrong kinda bastards in that faux-Greco-Roman bldg can "interpret" any amendment any way they like, right?

Not necessarily . . . note that Scalia did not get his way, so he cried, threw himself on the floor, screamed--so they allowed him to read his dissenting opinion from the bench--now he's pouting and won't got out to play with the other Justices at recess.

In all seriousness, the Supremes for two hundred years have a record in jurisprudence of probity and faith to the duty imposed upon them by Marbury v. Madison which has never been equaled by any other judiciary in history. Scalia and Thomas were the "natural law" activists who were supposed to push the neo-con agenda; it simply hasn't worked that way, because, although not faultless in the process, the Supremes as a body habitually adhere to the principal of supportable findings of fact and of law.

Or so we say today with a huge sigh of relief! Tune in tomorrow...

It all depends which side of the bed Sandra Day O'Connor woke up on!

Or whether she made it through the night, Bill? A leetle belladonna een dat warm meelk, spayshal for yew my darleen sent over by zee Wite Haas kook?

wh, I equate people not understanding homosexual issues at the same level people misunderstand about blacks; ignorance. Some may hate, but the majority who do not understand discrimination against one group or another isn't based on hate. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions. Much misunderstanding about homosexuals arise from religious teachings. Most of the people with religious beliefs about homosexuals do not hate them, they only disagree with their lifestyle. c.i.

The same can be said with the "untouchables" in India, that's where we were 100 years ago in the South. It is still no excuse. Someone like Bill Frist should know better, doesn't; and therefore, should not be the leader of the Senate - period. Let him leave with one of his equals - Tom DeLay.

I saw this:
I really prefer responses where the person asked for a link just... gets it.
----------------
And I really prefer that if someone takes the time to accuse someone of not providing one, they make sure they're right first. The link is provided in this thread.

Looks like this time, neither of us gets our preference.

And that's the r-e-s-t of the story, Bill. Get rid of Bush, and we still have some godawful Reps and Sens. If the country were in good shape, they would just be considered laughable anomalies. But with serious business confronting us, they are real trouble.

c.i.<

What is it about the homosexual lifestyle that these religious people disagree? And, c.i., just how would you describe the homosexual lifestyle? Do you have any gay friends who can show you that their lifestyle is very much like that of other Americans?

Or, as I suspect, are you one of those of those who hate the sin but love the sinners?

A homosexual, to me, is a child of the same God that you are. In other words, regardless of sexual orientation, we are all children of God.

In the UK, they started now, what has been done efore in a couple of European countries:
"A historic partnership between gay rights and the law."

Legislation for same-sex couples aimed at forcing culture change

Republicans in bed with the gay community? GWB will now do anything INCLUDING sucking a dick to stay in power. It's official.

Hypocritical assholes.

BPB, GWB has already been sucking a Dick, feeling a Rumps and entertaining a Colin. Gee, nothing changed! After all, he is a Bush (the wimp factor prevails)

First, the federal government lacking power in an area does not mean nothing can be done, it means it is up to the states to do something. Second, if we want the feds to act in an area, there is this thing called an AMENDMENT which we use to modify the Constitution so that it can change with the times.

Setanta - Your point is moot unless the TX law gave government the right to actually SPY (video, record, ...) in that bedroom. What was the unreasonable search? What personal effects or papers were not secure? Once again, you wish to stretch the language to mean something it does not. Perhaps you think we may beat our children as much as we like so long as we do it in the privacy of our own homes. Surely this fictional right to privacy would extend to that as well, right?

The TX law is stupid, the USSC ruling on it is even worse (and that's regardless of which way they ruled).