Proposition 8

[Balloon guy 158]

I've listened to both and there's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two except for which side they're on. If you think either one is harmless or entertaining then that really shows more about you than anything else.

If you can say that those two are the same, than you haven't listend to Rush for more than 5 minutes.

[CaneBrain 95]

I've never seen more closed mindedness and refusal for others to have differing opinions than from the left.

with muslim fanaticism rampant in the world, this is about the dumbest thing you have ever said.and to pretend the right does not have nutsos like this is silly.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I've listened to both and there's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two except for which side they're on. If you think either one is harmless or entertaining then that really shows more about you than anything else.

Now you're an expert on conservative talk radio? Seriously? When was the last time you listened to more than a soundbite of Rush while you were watching your liberal news?You seem to run your e-mouth like you're an authority on a lot of subjects, yet you wear your inconsistency and misinformation like a badge of honor.It's like a car accident, I can't help myself from slowing down to watch the carnage.

[irishguy 14]

So it looks like the rally for support of gay marriage in Palm Springs won't end up with a bunch of gay guys going to jail after all.A 69 year old woman decided to make a styrofoam cross and carry it on the sidewalk during the No on 8 rally ( held 5 days after the election).Well she was swarmed, the cross ripped from her hands and broken into peices, she herself was pushed and cursed at. The police had to move in to protect her from the angry crowd. She decided not to press charges.The couple standing a block away that had a yes on 8 sign had to get police protection.I read that someone had their car keyed in the church parking lot at Rick Warren's church for having a Yes on 8 bumper sticker.I've never seen more closed mindedness and refusal for others to have differing opinions than from the left.

It's not closed mindedness it is frustration at being told that you are of less value then others. I don't condone the actions but what is the point in walking through the protest with a cross? Especially days after an election which your side won. Your side won now people can't marry dogs and all is right in the world why go out and rub the nose of those devasted by this in it?

[Balloon guy 158]

with muslim fanaticism rampant in the world, this is about the dumbest thing you have ever said.and to pretend the right does not have nutsos like this is silly.

1.Muslim fanatics don't claim to be open minded....the left does on a daily basis2.I've said WAY dumber things3.The left's fringe seems to be more in charge though.

[CaneBrain 95]

It's not closed mindedness it is frustration at being told that you are of less value then others. I don't condone the actions but what is the point in walking through the protest with a cross? Especially days after an election which your side won. Your side won now people can't marry dogs and all is right in the world why go out and rub the nose of those devasted by this in it?

oh come now. if two gay guys in rainbow pantaloons had walked into the middle of a group of "salt of the earth" small town evangelicals and interrupted their protest of gay marriages, nothing would have happened.I also have this bridge for sale if anyone is interested.

[CaneBrain 95]

1.Muslim fanatics don't claim to be open minded....the left does on a daily basis (thats a fair point.)2.I've said WAY dumber things (touche?)3.The left's fringe seems to be more in charge though. (I have the same complaint about Christianity. It often seems like the nutty 10% runs the show. Perspective I suppose)

[Balloon guy 158]

It's not closed mindedness it is frustration at being told that you are of less value then others. I don't condone the actions but what is the point in walking through the protest with a cross? Especially days after an election which your side won. Your side won now people can't marry dogs and all is right in the world why go out and rub the nose of those devasted by this in it?

If some 69 year old woman wants to walk around, tell her you disagree, tell her she's wrong.Physically assulting her and destroying her property is over the line.Freedom of speech is a two sided street.In America we let the KKK have marches, and for the most part the police have to protect them from the protesters. That's the way it is with freedom of speech, everyone gets to use it, not just the beautiful people.

[Balloon guy 158]

1.Muslim fanatics don't claim to be open minded....the left does on a daily basis (thats a fair point.)2.I've said WAY dumber things (touche?)3.The left's fringe seems to be more in charge though. (I have the same complaint about Christianity. It often seems like the nutty 10% runs the show. Perspective I suppose) You must not know any Christians or see who our supposed leaders would be. I am guessing you are only seeing the ones that make the news. Kind of like the 1/50,000 priest accused of molesting a kid represents the entire priesthood

[Balloon guy 158]

oh come now. if two gay guys in rainbow pantaloons had walked into the middle of a group of "salt of the earth" small town evangelicals and interrupted their protest of gay marriages, nothing would have happened.I also have this bridge for sale if anyone is interested.

If that's the bridge the left is going to use to reach out to the right I might be interested.An unused bridge may come in handy...

[irishguy 14]

If some 69 year old woman wants to walk around, tell her you disagree, tell her she's wrong.Physically assulting her and destroying her property is over the line.Freedom of speech is a two sided street.In America we let the KKK have marches, and for the most part the police have to protect them from the protesters. That's the way it is with freedom of speech, everyone gets to use it, not just the beautiful people.

I don't disagree with you but the freedom she was using was done to antagonize the people protesting. (Again I don't agree with their behaviour). Disagreeing with the protesters I can understand walking over to rub their faces in it is hate filled.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't disagree with you but the freedom she was using was done to antagonize the people protesting. (Again I don't agree with their behaviour). Disagreeing with the protesters I can understand walking over to rub their faces in it is hate filled.

group of 19 year olds with signs burning a gay flag...yea I'll go with hate being a motive,.69 year old woman with cross, not likely she had any hate in her heart.Not saying she had any brains either, but hate I really doubt.

[RealMagnetic 0]

Never go up to a mob, and excite them to anger. Because for some reason people do crazy/agressive/stupid stuff when they are ina mob of people. I am not condoning it.

[Nimue1995 1]

If you can say that those two are the same, than you haven't listend to Rush for more than 5 minutes.

Now you're an expert on conservative talk radio? Seriously? When was the last time you listened to more than a soundbite of Rush while you were watching your liberal news?You seem to run your e-mouth like you're an authority on a lot of subjects, yet you wear your inconsistency and misinformation like a badge of honor.It's like a car accident, I can't help myself from slowing down to watch the carnage.

Wrong! Like I've said before, I was a Republican before I came to Montana and got a taste of extreme Libertarian Republicanism that is the norm here. In fact, the Democrats here would have been moderate Republicans in Washington state. I do admit it's been a while since I listened to Rush. I quit the job where that was what was playing on the radio all day and haven't listened to him since. I considered it a hostile work environment,lol. But regardless, I listened. And as I said before, there have been times when he's had some reasonable points. There's been some times when Olbermann had some reasonable points. Unfortunately, you have to listen to the other 95% of the crap that they're spewing in order to get the 5% that's useful. And I don't have any use for either of them. So put that in your conservative liberal-bashing pipe and smoke it!

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

the problem with Rush, KO, Franken since he's become an overtly politcal talk show host, and others.. is that they are just brutally not entertaining, are not funny or clever, the vast amount of the time. I'm sure BG thinks rush is hilarious, as he's a big fan of terrible partisan humor, but he's playing to a very friendly crowd, and I don't think he's that funny at all, I think he's mostly just a bore. ( he's at his best when he's destroying some caller... Franken doesn't even destroy callers well). I think Michael Savage has more entertainment value than any of these guys, just because he's such a raving psycho. At least his raving doesn't put me to sleep.

[El Guapo 8]

A 69 year old woman decided to make a styrofoam cross and carry it on the sidewalk during the No on 8 rally ( held 5 days after the election).Hahahahahahaha

[uahphysics 0]

For people who support bans on same-sex marriage:Why? What do your personal morals have anything to do with the freedoms of others? What would two men or two women marrying have anything to do with you? Also, I know Keith brings it up in the video, but I think it's a valid point: Do you honestly not see the similarities between the interracial marriage laws of 40 years ago? We can see now that those laws were bigoted and unjust, so why are same-sex marriage bans not seen in the same light? Lastly, is there even a rational argument against same-sex marriage that isn't religious? I've never heard one if there is.

[Balloon guy 158]

For people who support bans on same-sex marriage:Why? What do your personal morals have anything to do with the freedoms of others? What would two men or two women marrying have anything to do with you? Also, I know Keith brings it up in the video, but I think it's a valid point: Do you honestly not see the similarities between the interracial marriage laws of 40 years ago? We can see now that those laws were bigoted and unjust, so why are same-sex marriage bans not seen in the same light? Lastly, is there even a rational argument against same-sex marriage that isn't religious? I've never heard one if there is.

Marriage is a religious institution that government joined up with for legal reasonsBenefits to married couples are based on the normal outcome of man and women marrying; children and a familyTax breaks, hospital visits, probate laws, all based on the needs and best interest of a family, not perk for saying I do.Gay people want the benefits, without the normal outcome of having one person in the relationship staying home with the children etc. They have higher incomes, they have better lifestyles, and they want all the benefits of something that isn't necessary for their relationshipsUsing arguments that many families don't stay together, or not all couples have kids doesn't change the fact of what marraige is, and why the government supports it with benefits.They can get all the perks also by using the name domestic partnership and getting power of attornys etc.They want to change the definition of a word that has been used for thousands of years, because they want to. Not good enough

[king_tanner 84]

I've got a few lesbos in my family and we were all pretty disappointed with this passing.I don't think something like this should be put to vote. Whether a majority hates gays or not, people should have the right to marry whether they are gay or straight imo.

[king_tanner 84]

Gay people want the benefits, without the normal outcome of having one person in the relationship staying home with the children etc. They have higher incomes, they have better lifestyles, and they want all the benefits of something that isn't necessary for their relationships

I've heard this argument a lot. You hear about it more with gay couples, but straight couples have gotten married for the same reason. Straight couples don't always have children.Lots of gay couples adopt children.

[hblask 1]

The notion that marriage has a static definition that has been stable for thousands of years is a myth. It has changed repeatedly throughout history and across cultures, and has always been based on the needs and morals of the society. It's clear where that is headed in this country.I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem is that the govt is defining marriage at all. It's between you, your family, and your religion. Get the govt out and the problem is solved.

[uncooper 1]

I said it in the gay marriage thread and I'll repeat it here. The government should define only "civil unions". It should not discriminate between hetero/homo. Grant churches, courts, etc. the ability to certify these civil unions. Take the word marriage completely out of the law.Religious organizations can then define marriage, which is super important to them, however they please.

[Balloon guy 158]

So the word marriage is unusable because it's too religious?And it doesn't mean the same thing from one generation to the next?I'm not following either of you.But I guess changing all of societies views on an instution for the 1% of the population that will probalby use the new definition aobut 10% of the time is a more enlightened path.I guess we should chuck the dictionary and have some newspeak

[hblask 1]

What I'm saying is that the government is destroying the word by being involved in life's most personal moments. If the government didn't meddle in our private life, you would be perfectly free to ignore anyone who is crazy enough to think that marriage is between two men, just as you are free to ignore people who think Elvis works at their local 7-11. Get the government out of our private lives, and the definition is set by society, church, community, you, your family, just as it always has beenIt's only a controversy because of overreaching government policies.

[Balloon guy 158]

What I'm saying is that the government is destroying the word by being involved in life's most personal moments. If the government didn't meddle in our private life, you would be perfectly free to ignore anyone who is crazy enough to think that marriage is between two men, just as you are free to ignore people who think Elvis works at their local 7-11. Get the government out of our private lives, and the definition is set by society, church, community, you, your family, just as it always has beenIt's only a controversy because of overreaching government policies.

But the government has a vested interest in helping families through tax breaks, cutting red tape with regard to hospitals, probate laws etc.Man and wife links require different rights than man and man links because of the children involved, which again is a natural consequence of marraige, and will never happen between a man and a man.You're world of hands off governments and no national borders doesn't exist, so quit making decisions and laws like it does.