We were so poor, that to save money on haircuts, I used to antagonize Romney so that he would hack off my hair.

Olivant, that was hilarious! You made my day!

The parents of Tyler Clementi and Matthew Shepard should school Mr. Romney on what bullying did to their gay sons.

Uh, oh! Another side of the story about Romney and hair-cutting:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/11/report-lauber-sibling-has-no-knowledge-prank/

I tell you, this is SHOCKING - that it was reported by Faux News. Puh-leeze. If he didn't remember the event, why did he apologize?

With all gay talk in relation to the upcoming election, I'm shocked...SHOCKED...that nobody here has mentioned Obama's recent arrival (after his long journey of "evolving") to the conclusion that gays should be able to get married.

Looking at his "evolving" record, it looks like a UTurn don't it?

If it was anybody but Mitt, the opponent could accuse the POTUS of being a flip-flopper. Ha!

BTW, isn't it wonderful progress in our country when a sitting President now being pro-gay is now considered a vote-getter? A very long time from DOMA in '96 or the fact that bashing gays was a successful GOP vote driver in '02-'04.

Jesus just 10 years ago, SSM wasn't just a minority position in America, it wasn't even the majority position within the Democratic Party. The majority jockeyed between Civil Unions and LET'S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE! From pop culture to the religious right's failure at Moral Authority, we've come to this day.

In short, thank you Bristol Palin.

I agree with him frankly. I have believed this for several years.If you had asked me twenty years ago, I would have said that legal (not necessarily religious) marriage should be limited to man and woman. But whether it was from years of seeing gays persecuted and discriminated against or witnessing them shatter the silly, societal stereotypes that had been forced upon them, I have concluded that they have the same right to commit to relationships as the law affords heterosexuals. The repeal of "don't ask/don't tell" and the growing awareness of the suffering of many young gays have further solidified my belief.

If anyone wants to call my change of position a flip flop, feel free. But it certainly is better than being shackled to a belief that betrays my conscience.

I think that once you state your choices, beliefs, or positions on issues and topics, come hell or high water, you should stick with them forever.

That's why I will never forgive myself for going back on my fourth grade promise to marry Peggy Ryan.

Sounds like a good Catholic girl from Pittsburgh.

For me it was Paulette Valvano.

I've mentioned it before but do so again simply because it's pertinent to this topic. I'm religious, and a conservative independent, but have two gay brothers. Of course, one doesn't need to have family members to see that bullying others is wrong. At the same time, it's hardly "progress" when marriage is being redefined in our society.

I suppose I could go on about this, with it mostly falling on deaf ears, so I'll just sum it up like this. If I'm the devil, the trick here is to play both ends against the middle on this issue. (Like many issues.) On one hand, if I can get people to persecute and bully gay people, I win. On the other hand, if I can get people to do a total 180 and not only look at homosexual behavior as OK, but legitimize it through legal marriage, I win again. People have forgotten that sin often wears the mask of tolerance.

Sermon over.

Well this is fascinating.

Top GOP Pollster to GOP: Reverse On Gay Issues

From a pollster that worked Dubya's '04 campaign, he sends out this talking points memo to the party establishment.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-habe...age-123235.html

The last passage I liked, and it does approach SSM from a right-wing perspective:



Isn't that a great answer?

The memo also listed out topics which most polled Republicans (and American public) support on the Gay topic, and this brings up something I wondered about Mittens' campaign.

Before Obama's bombshell announcement this week, why didn't Romney exploit Obama's public kubaki dance on that issue? For an issue the public is polling upwards against the anti-gay forces, Romney could've taken a considerable chunk of the political centre while Obama had taken that issue for his for granted.

He still would've been publicly against SSM because of that base, but he could've done his own moderate public gestures on little things. For instance, support an anti-discrimination bill that would prevent employers from firing employees simply for their orientation. Give domestic partnerships the right to visit their partners in the hospital. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of GOPers oppose legal recognition in any form).

But he didn't. None of that. Not even a token public defense of his own spokesman last week. And this week happens, and Obama takes the centre for himself when Mittens could've raided for himself.

That's a lesson kids: When there's an opening, TAKE IT.

In response to the above, conservative radio host Michael Medved often says conservatives aren't saying gays can't get married. They're saying don't expect government sponsorship of it.

And, as far as Romney is concerned, he has said he doesn't have a problem with gay partners having hospital visitation rights and certain other things. But not equating their relationships to "marriage."

Without legal rights like property protection that you and me take for granted.



He should've made a considerable deal of this instead of mumbling about it in a token measure.

God forbid he probably was afraid of he had put more effort, Sean Hannity might whine.

Romney gave a commencement address at Liberty University, where you can take such courses like this:

---------------------------------------------------------------

Page 173. Graduate course Theology 678—Western and New Religions.

Course description:

"The history, doctrines, and present state of the major cults such as Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventism. The course will also include a study of the Occult Movement. Emphasis is placed on the errors of these groups and on methods and materials for confronting them effectively."

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/romney-...rmonism-a-cult/

The last thing independent voters want to see is Mitt pander to Faux News. It's really sad that even level headed conservatives have to live in fear of those assholes.

Tony Perkins (Family Research Council) was on Piers Morgan this past week. Piers asked him how he'd react if one of his kids said that he was gay:

MORGAN: What would you do if one of them came home and said, dad, I'm gay?

PERKINS: Well, we would have a conversation about it. I doubt that would happen with my children as we are teaching them the right ways that they are to interact as human beings, we're not allowing them to be indoctrinated by the education system.

Apparently, Dick Cheney did not teach his daughter Liz Cheney the right ways since Liz is a lesbian.

I don't think the gay marriage issue will be all that important in the fall.
And despite some people's wildly overblown fears or other equally overblown triumphalism PBO's opinion on same sex marriage is more or less irrelevant to the states which have banned it. Short of a SC decision throwing out DOMA or eliminating all bans, I think the changes will continue to be gradually done at state levels.

No surprise there. It's a private college in the south. I imagine Romney will do what he can do reach out to the Evengelicals but, for many of them, their dislike of Mormons is fixed and there's no getting around it.

We evolve, and so should the law.

I had previously posted that the Republican House in the PA legislature passed a law that all voters must now show photo ID before they can vote. They claimed it was to combat voter fraud although that has not been an issue in PA elections. The effect (as well as the veiled purpose) of the law is to impede the ability of the elderly, young, poor. minority and inner city residents to vote as they are less likely to possess a photo driver's license. The legislature stated that those people can appear at a regional PennDOT office to get a state photo ID for free.

However, they must have a certified birth certificate, which is pricy and other forms of id. It's absolutely insane that the legislature has made it more difficult to obtain the ID necessary to vote than to register to vote in the first place. What's more, residents, who were born outside of PA, are required to obtain certified birth certificates in person for some states.

If you do not have a driver's license in PA, brace yourselves financially and prepare for red tape if you want to vote.

My SIL is legally blind, and therefore has never had a driver's license. However, a photo ID has become necessary for so many things that she went to the Department of Motor Vehicles and applied for a NYS Non-Driver's License.

??
which is a license for what?

It's just a photo ID card issued through the Department of Motor Vehicles, but they mark it "Non-Driver's" because it looks just like a Driver's License.

The other night on Letterman's Top Ten, he did the "Ten Most Unpopular Baby Names."

John Edwards Jr. topped the list .

And to think I actually did some campaigning for Edwards to get the nomination

Have you ever listened to Michael Medved's radio show. He absolutely detest Edwards and has done so going way back tot he last election. I've never heard him explain why except that Edwards is a trial lawyer. Of course, I know that Medved also detests trial lawyers in general.

Not surprised he hates Edwards. Medved is a flaming neocon.

I knew you were a lib, Dapper, but you calling Medved a "flaming neocon" shows me just how much. Medved is probably the most moderate of the talk show hosts on conservative talk radio. Blowhards like Limbaugh and Hannity get the press but Michael Medved or Dennis Prager are much better.

And as for Edwards, is it really a mystery why somebody wouldn't like that guy? He's the poster boy for the slimy, corrupt lawyer/politician if there ever was one. But, hey, he's a liberal Democrat so he's not going to get too much criticism on this board.

Your right Medved and co. are much better than Limbaugh, but not by much. I am a liberal but not a super one as my previous comment might suggest. Moderately Liberal and Fiscally Conservative is just right. But in reality, I support policy positions that are supported by non-partisan data which makes sense regardless of partisan label.

I am not too familiar with Dennis Prager or Medved, but from a quick google search for Prager he seems to be a conservative that touts his political and social views from Judeo-Christian values. I respect that, I am just not that big on religion as a guiding principle for my policy positions thats all.

As for Edwards, besides the current hoopla he finds himself in he was never accused of being corrupt in the past. I supported him because he had many good ideas for the economy and particularly poverty which he is well known for.

Both Medved and Prager are Jewish, as well as proponents of the Judeo-Christian influence in America. The difference is, they tend to frame their arguments and thinking in more intelligent and convincing ways than many of the others, who are just talking heads. Both Medved and Prager have a lot of liberal listeners, though obviously they don't always agree with them.