[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Gays have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, just like they rest of us.
Unfortunately, in the US, they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

All of this would be true IF marriage was a right. Find me where it says you have the RIGHT to get married.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

All of this would be true IF marriage was a right. Find me where it says you have the RIGHT to get married.

Um, well, this varies from state to state, but here's the law from my state that grants people the right to get married.

It's a right assigned by law, not by constitution, but regardless, it's still a right. There are, I would guess, 49 other similar documents, so plenty of spots to find this information!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

All of this would be true IF marriage was a right. Find me where it says you have the RIGHT to get married.

Then, what *is* it?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

All of this would be true IF marriage was a right. Find me where it says you have the RIGHT to get married.

That's an interesting stance to take. If you forbid straights to marry, then yes, you could validly also ban gay marriage. But as long as people are allowed to marry with impunity provided the partners are of opposite sex, this is a matter of equal protection under the law.

Personally, I would be totally behind just getting rid of federal marriage altogether. Replace it with a generic domestic partnership framework (heck, maybe even allow for multiple domestic partners) and let the churches take care of marriage the way they always should have done.

[ctt1wbw]

Churches do not have the financial backing or the manpower to do stuff like that. And if that were the case, then they'd get federal money to do it, which would probably violate something, namely the separation of church and state.

[ctt1wbw]

I can tell that a majority of posters here are very liberal. Either that or you guys are bending to political correctness. Next thing is probably going to say here that you guys believe that animals should have lawyers to represent them in court against hunters.

[BadKosh]

The Ill laws do not specify the practice as a right. Where did you thnk you saw those words.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The Ill laws do not specify the practice as a right. Where did you thnk you saw those words.

The same place you didn't see those words. Your argument is absurd.
CreepDog already defined "right" as defined by IL.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Churches do not have the financial backing or the manpower to do stuff like that. And if that were the case, then they'd get federal money to do it, which would probably violate something, namely the separation of church and state.

Churches marry people since thousands of years without any problems. They have the manpower and financial backing.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I can tell that a majority of posters here are very liberal. Either that or you guys are bending to political correctness. Next thing is probably going to say here that you guys believe that animals should have lawyers to represent them in court against hunters.

I could say that the next thing you Conservatives probably want to do is forcibly send all gays to mental institutions to be cured. But I'm not going to do that, because that would be shoving words in your mouth that misrepresent your position.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

The same place you didn't see those words. Your argument is absurd.
CreepDog already defined "right" as defined by IL.

Go read through it yourself. It defines rules and penalties etc but never as a 'right' .

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Churches marry people since thousands of years without any problems. They have the manpower and financial backing.

Yeah, because people pay for it. Just like people pay us here to marry them at the Bed and Breakfast. I was commenting about the fact the someone said churches should take over the whole marriage thing from the government. They don't have the manpower or financial resources to do that.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I could say that the next thing you Conservatives probably want to do is forcibly send all gays to mental institutions to be cured. But I'm not going to do that, because that would be shoving words in your mouth that misrepresent your position.

Yeah it would, since I never said I hate gays. I said gay people have the same rights as everyone else. The right to vote, practice religion, read the papers, everything else.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Churches do not have the financial backing or the manpower to do stuff like that. And if that were the case, then they'd get federal money to do it, which would probably violate something, namely the separation of church and state.

Churches already marry people. Why would they need any federal money to perform a religious union?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Yeah, because people pay for it. Just like people pay us here to marry them at the Bed and Breakfast. I was commenting about the fact the someone said churches should take over the whole marriage thing from the government. They don't have the manpower or financial resources to do that.

I believe the comment was referring to the difference between civil unions and marriage; churches take over the *marriage* thing while government handles the *civil union* thing (the costly bit). Then everyone, gay or straight, can have a civil union and those who want a "marriage" can get one from a religious institution willing to marry them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I believe the comment was referring to the difference between civil unions and marriage; churches take over the *marriage* thing while government handles the *civil union* thing (the costly bit). Then everyone, gay or straight, can have a civil union and those who want a "marriage" can get one from a religious institution willing to marry them.

Sounds like by "civil" you're talking about "domestic partnerships" which were not in jeopardy by Prop 8 in California for example. What was the primary contention? The word "marriage" apparently. Unless someone can produce the actual rights lost under Prop 8.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Yeah it would, since I never said I hate gays. I said gay people have the same rights as everyone else. The right to vote, practice religion, read the papers, everything else.

The right to read the papers?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Yeah it would, since I never said I hate gays. I said gay people have the same rights as everyone else. The right to vote, practice religion, read the papers, everything else.

So in your view, gay people have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else. You don't see anything wrong with that logic?

[besson3c]

Just as long as they don't read any papers.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sounds like by "civil" you're talking about "domestic partnerships" which were not in jeopardy by Prop 8 in California for example. What was the primary contention? The word "marriage" apparently. Unless someone can produce the actual rights lost under Prop 8.

The right to real equality rather than a "separate but equal" institution from what straights get.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Yeah, because people pay for it. Just like people pay us here to marry them at the Bed and Breakfast. I was commenting about the fact the someone said churches should take over the whole marriage thing from the government. They don't have the manpower or financial resources to do that.

If they're ALREADY DOING IT, how could they possibly not have the manpower or financial resources? As you yourself pointed out, it's actually a moneymaker. Honestly, what are you talking about? What kind of burden do you imagine it would be?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Go read through it yourself. It defines rules and penalties etc but never as a 'right' .

Oh for god's sake. Seriously? Here - I'll spell it out.

Originally Posted by My Link

(750 ILCS 5/Pt. II heading)
PART II
MARRIAGE

(750 ILCS 5/201) (from Ch. 40, par. 201)
Sec. 201. Formalities.) A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State.
(Source: P.A. 80‑923.)

The state recognizes marriages between a man and a woman. Are you really that dense that you have to have it spelled out further? If that section is not granting the right to marry, than what exactly IS, seeing as how I can attest to the fact that many people are married in this state?

[stupendousman]

From the creation of our country, "marriage" has always been a long term union of a man and a woman which normally results in creation of offspring.

That's been the de facto definition from day one. Twenty years ago, you'd probably find few people who would disagree.

If you have the right to do this, then you have the right to do it. What people want is to have the same recognition for things which are not "marriage" or to change the definition. It's perfectly within their right to want a change in the laws but nowhere in the Constitution does it give people the right to have the courts make this change on it's own. There are no protections in the Constitution in regards to not being judged based on who you decide to have sexual relations with.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

So in your view, gay people have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else. You don't see anything wrong with that logic?

Marriage isn't a right. Is it in the Constitution?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Marriage isn't a right. Is it in the Constitution?

You keep saying this. If it isn't a right, then what is it?

[SpaceMonkey]

With the Louisiana interracial marriage case in the news, I would be interested in knowing the conservatives' views here on the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, which ruled that any ban on interracial marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the fact that neither race nor marriage are explicitly mentioned in the amendment. In the decision, the court wrote that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You keep saying this. If it isn't a right, then what is it?

Or, more specifically, are the only rights we have as US Citizens the rights that are enumerated in the Constitution?
Be careful what you say, the Ninth Amendment is listening....

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

From the creation of our country, "marriage" has always been a long term union of a man and a woman which normally results in creation of offspring.

Regardless, that is certainly not what it is today. Many people get married without any clear intentions to have children. Many people are allowed to get married even though we know full well that they don't have the biological capability to create offspring. And to top it all off, many people create offspring without being married.

Heck, to top it all off even higher, gay couples can have children, either through adoption, fertilization or surrogates — which a lot of straight couples use as well. So your argument doesn't even have any bearing on the question of gay marriage unless we focus exclusively on the "man and a woman part."

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But as long as people are allowed to marry with impunity provided the partners are of opposite sex, this is a matter of equal protection under the law.

If it's a matter of equal protection, does a man have an equal protection claim to use a woman's bathroom or vice versa? And why are men required to register with Selective Service but women are not?

When you redefine the terms of marriage you necessarily have to deny the biological fact that men and women are different and unique in specific ways.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If it's a matter of equal protection, does a man have an equal protection claim to use a woman's bathroom or vice versa?

No, because there are countervailing privacy issues.

And why are men required to register with Selective Service but women are not?

Someone should probably investigate this. It might not hold up in court today.

When you redefine the terms of marriage you necessarily have to deny the biological fact that men and women are different and unique in specific ways.

Only if you think that procreation is the only defensible reason for the government to be interested in who marries who. If that's the case, we ought to deny the infertile the right to marry as well. Gays can adopt just as well as they can.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

With the Louisiana interracial marriage case in the news, I would be interested in knowing the conservatives' views here on the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, which ruled that any ban on interracial marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the fact that neither race nor marriage are explicitly mentioned in the amendment. In the decision, the court wrote that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".

That was the point I was making in my Sad irony thread. It was pointed out to me that the State can overrule decisions by the Supreme court through a State Constitutional Amendment, which can then only be superseded by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Oh for god's sake. Seriously? Here - I'll spell it out.



The state recognizes marriages between a man and a woman. Are you really that dense that you have to have it spelled out further? If that section is not granting the right to marry, than what exactly IS, seeing as how I can attest to the fact that many people are married in this state?

Do you have a 'right' to a drivers license? I don't doubt that people are married in Ill, but the language of the statutes doesn't state it as a right. Perhaps Ill, being a liberally slanted state has had some legislation from the bench which has construed the meaning of the words.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

With the Louisiana interracial marriage case in the news, I would be interested in knowing the conservatives' views here on the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, which ruled that any ban on interracial marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the fact that neither race nor marriage are explicitly mentioned in the amendment. In the decision, the court wrote that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".

The question was whether or not race can be the sole factor in discriminating, as it was in the "Loving" case. Courts have ruled that the 14th Amendment does not allow race discrimination, and as such the found in favor of Loving.

Marriage at the time was a union between a man and a woman. That wasn't what was being debated in Loving, therefore it's not something that the courts could decide on. Given that unlike with the 14th amendment which was designed to protect based on race, there is no amendment which has been put on the books to protect our choices in sexual partners.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Something just being in the constitution or not doesn't make it a 'right'.

Basic rights, unalienable rights, civil rights, aren't granted to men by other men. They just exist and are either recognized or not by the government.

The Constitution isn't a list of "now here's what rights we're granting to you peons from on high!" It outlines the powers granted and divided among the federal and state governments, and recognizes that powers not specifically granted to either are reserved for the people. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it states what rights the fed and state must recognize.


Basically, my only point is that whether or not marriage is a 'right' or not; the litmus test isn't direct mention in the constitution, or in any state constitution.

Two adults calling themselves married -regardless of their gender- doesn't require anyone else to give up anything. It doesn't cost anyone else their time or freedom. To me, two adults getting together and doing anything that isn't illegal, doesn't violate anyone else's rights, and doesn't cost anyone else anything IS something that can be called a 'right' in my book.

States and governments may not recognize that right, but that doesn't mean it automatically isn't one.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Regardless, that is certainly not what it is today. Many people get married without any clear intentions to have children.

I know I didn't.

Here I am today with two kids, the first totally unplanned.

The fact is, that's what normally happens regardless of whether you plan it that way or not. The vast majority of those who marry have children even if they didn't plan to in the beginning.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The question was whether or not race can be the sole factor in discriminating, as it was in the "Loving" case. Courts have ruled that the 14th Amendment does not allow race discrimination, and as such the found in favor of Loving.

Marriage at the time was a union between a man and a woman. That wasn't what was being debated in Loving, therefore it's not something that the courts could decide on. Given that unlike with the 14th amendment which was designed to protect based on race, there is no amendment which has been put on the books to protect our choices in sexual partners.

Of course the court wasn't deciding on the definition of marriage in "Loving," it was irrelevant to the case. That's not my point. The 14th Amendment does not simply prohibit racial discrimination. In fact, it doesn't mention race at all, or the institution of marriage. It goes far beyond that, and has been used to strike down examples in many different contexts of gender discrimination, ageism, and yes, discrimination against homosexuals. Given existing precedents, the arguments used to decide the "Loving" case naturally apply to same-sex marriages. It sounds like you are perfectly in favor of judicial activism, as long as it's in support of your own ideological position.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Only if you think that procreation is the only defensible reason for the government to be interested in who marries who. If that's the case, we ought to deny the infertile the right to marry as well. Gays can adopt just as well as they can.

It's essentially an "affirmative action" the government takes in recognizing the tradition of the marriage union. The government typically does not further means test such rights to affirmative actions more than to simply making sure that the people in question would generally be able to meet the minimum qualifications.

For instance, in racial affirmative action, as long as you are a racial minority you get to participate. It doesn't matter if you are actually already capable of succeeding on your own and will never really need the extra help that the affirmative action gives - you just qualifiy regardless. There's no requirement for any kind of testing to make sure you can qualify any further than a basic yes or no in regards to who you are.. In fact, there very well be some non-racial minorities that might be better served in getting the preferential treatment who never can.

I'm not sure why we'd go to the extra trouble to test for fertility - especially when such tests are flawed. Many a person who thought they couldn't have children end up doing so later in life. It would seem to be a flawed standard that invades privacy and be impossible to support.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Do you have a 'right' to a drivers license?

Um, yes, provided you meet all the conditions set forth in the statute that provides for it. The state can't give me a license (when I meet all conditions), and NOT give one to you (when you meet all conditions). Meaning we have the same right to obtain a license.

I don't doubt that people are married in Ill, but the language of the statutes doesn't state it as a right.

OK, now I know that you are just being dense. By that definition, you don't have the right to free speech either, because the First Amendment doesn't specifically state it as a 'right'. It says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...'

Perhaps Ill, being a liberally slanted state has had some legislation from the bench which has construed the meaning of the words.

[BadKosh]

Unless you are a lawyer, practicing in Ill, I'd say you are guessing.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Unless you are a lawyer, practicing in Ill, I'd say you are guessing.

Guessing what?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Guessing what?

Who'll get voted as the next Elvira: Mistress of the Dark.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If it's a matter of equal protection, does a man have an equal protection claim to use a woman's bathroom or vice versa?

I don't think so, much as other people don't have the right to horn in on your marriage. That is a matter of privacy.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And why are men required to register with Selective Service but women are not?

That is unjust and should be changed.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

When you redefine the terms of marriage you necessarily have to deny the biological fact that men and women are different and unique in specific ways.

Whatever specific differences and unique traits men and women have, they are irrelevant except as far as they are necessary parts of marriage law. In fact, none of these differences come into play. We don't require the woman to be subservient, we don't require the man to be the macho breadwinner — the law doesn't prescribe gender roles in a marriage at all. In fact, if the law did make sex-based distinctions in its protections and benefits, we'd consider that wrong. You could take out the heterosexual requirement with essentially no other changes to the law — in fact, that's exactly what California did.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Guessing what?

At the interpretation...DUH!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Of course the court wasn't deciding on the definition of marriage in "Loving," it was irrelevant to the case. That's not my point. The 14th Amendment does not simply prohibit racial discrimination. In fact, it doesn't mention race at all, or the institution of marriage. It goes far beyond that, and has been used to strike down examples in many different contexts of gender discrimination, ageism, and yes, discrimination against homosexuals. Given existing precedents, the arguments used to decide the "Loving" case naturally apply to same-sex marriages. It sounds like you are perfectly in favor of judicial activism, as long as it's in support of your own ideological position.

Could you quote for me a Supreme Court case that used the 14th Amendment as justification to keep someone from being discriminated against because they prefered pairing with someone of the same sex?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Only if you think that procreation is the only defensible reason for the government to be interested in who marries who. If that's the case, we ought to deny the infertile the right to marry as well. Gays can adopt just as well as they can.

No, you should make it a requirement that anyone who gets married *must* produce children. Failure to do so within a specified period of time (probably 5-10 years) will result in a fine and nullification of the marriage. That way, it's very clear what the purpose of marriage is (it's not a right, it's a responsibility), and it's available to anyone who can produce children.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Something just being in the constitution or not doesn't make it a 'right'.

Basic rights, unalienable rights, civil rights, aren't granted to men by other men. They just exist and are either recognized or not by the government.

The Constitution isn't a list of "now here's what rights we're granting to you peons from on high!" It outlines the powers granted and divided among the federal and state governments, and recognizes that powers not specifically granted to either are reserved for the people. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it states what rights the fed and state must recognize.


Basically, my only point is that whether or not marriage is a 'right' or not; the litmus test isn't direct mention in the constitution, or in any state constitution.

Two adults calling themselves married -regardless of their gender- doesn't require anyone else to give up anything. It doesn't cost anyone else their time or freedom. To me, two adults getting together and doing anything that isn't illegal, doesn't violate anyone else's rights, and doesn't cost anyone else anything IS something that can be called a 'right' in my book.

States and governments may not recognize that right, but that doesn't mean it automatically isn't one.

Nicely put.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Marriage at the time was a union between a man and a woman.

Actually, at the time marriage was a union between a man and a woman *of the same race*.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

At the interpretation...DUH!

What did I interpret?

[BadKosh]

FOX is reporting:

'They Tried to Steal an Election,' N.Y. Voter Fraud Case Heats Up
Thirty-eight forged or fraudulent ballots have been thrown out, according to records at the Rensselaer County Board of Elections in Troy, N.Y. Enough votes, an election official admits, to likely have tipped the November election to the Democrats.

'They Tried to Steal an Election,' N.Y. Voter Fraud Case Heats Up - Political News - FOXNews.com

"The only problem with these absentee ballot records at the Rensselaer County Board of Elections in Troy, N.Y., is that they're phony, voters and investigators say -- and they've prompted what's being called an unprecedented investigation of suspected voter fraud.

Thirty-eight forged or fraudulent ballots have been thrown out -- enough votes, an election official admits, to likely have tipped the city council and county elections in November to the Democrats. Candidates would have been able to run both on the Democratic and Working Families Party lines in two weeks, and that could have given the Democrats in the general election.

A special prosecutor is investigating the case and criminal charges are possible. New York State Supreme Court Judge Michael Lynch ruled that there were "significant election law violations that have compromised the rights of numerous voters and the integrity of the election process."

Among the reasons cited on the fraudulent forms for absentee voting: "traveling to Buffalo," attending a "screen printing conference in Syracuse," "working late shift," "working construction," and "home -- ill."

"Someone took my signature and voted with it and I felt extremely violated," Suozzo told Fox News. He is a soft-spoken 28-year-old environmental engineer who says he never saw, let alone signed, the Working Families Party Absentee ballot application that carried his supposed signature. He was flabbergasted that someone would vote for him and submit it.

"The whole thing seems dirty to me," Suzzo said. "You wonder how often this happens and people don't get caught."

He says he did not have any type of medical procedure, adding "I haven't been to the hospital in years."

"I feel that I was gypped," Boomhower said, ruefully. "I didn't get to cast my vote on my own."

Boomhower, a 28-year-old home health care worker, says three men came to her door asking her to sign a ballot application. It wasn't until after the election that a private investigator brought her the news that an absentee ballot indeed showed she had voted, when she actually had not.

"I can't believe they thought they would get away with this," she says angrily, noting that the false claim that she was in Boston could have jeopardized her job. "I don't want to see this get tossed aside," she told Fox News.

Michael Ward, whose ballot said he was taking care of an elderly parent, said "I got one parent left, and he lives in Albany and takes care of himself."

"They tried to steal an election," says Bob Mirch, the majority leader of the Rensselaer County legislature who suspected voter fraud and started the investigation after being alerted to a large number of absentee ballot application requests that were noticed by the Republican Board of Elections commissioner .

"Not only does it undermine the system, but if these people were allowed to do this, we could never have a fair election... I've been doing this for 35 years, when I saw this, it sends a chill through my body right now."

Mirch is a pugnacious veteran of the bruising county politics, a Conservative Party and Republican politician who is also Commissioner of Troy's Department of Public Works, which is why he relishes his sobriquet, "Bob, the Garbage Man." He brands local politics "a blood sport," in a city that in the 19th Century was once one of the country's wealthiest, has an abundance of elegant townhouses from that era, yet is often overshadowed by its neighbor Albany, the New York State capital. Campaign signs dot many front lawns, and it seems local political maneuvering is followed as closely as the Yankee playoffs. Mirch proudly admits he runs his own candidates in the left-leaning Working Families Party primaries to try and sap strength from the Democrats or gain the line for Republican candidates, but he insists he has never acted unlawfully, and blames his political opponents for doing just that.

"These Democrats and Working Families people couldn't bear taking another defeat at the hands of the garbage man, as I'm known in Troy, so they went out and took the law in their own hands to claim victory," he says.

"As soon as I heard it -- I was mad, disappointed, frustrated," says Troy Democratic Chairman Frank LaPosta. He blames what he calls "a rogue group of Democrats," and says what happened "is beyond comprehension."

LaPosta stood in his apron in his Italian salumeria, stocked with fresh delicacies and cuts of meat. He once ran for Mayor and appears genuinely wounded by the scandal.

"I believe we could have won without the Working Families Party line," he says. "To have something like this darken the election, its just an outrage for true Democrats in the city of Troy. This is not what the Democratic party in the city of Troy stands for," he said. "Some people think you have to have all the lines to win. I believe you have to have the issues to win."

The Working Families Party has recently gained strength, and controversy, in New York. Republican and Democratic candidates in the Empire State can also run on third party lines, such as the Working Families Party, as well as the Liberal, Conservative, and Independence parties, among others. The extra line means extra votes that could bring victory.

Hillary Clinton garnered 2.7 percent of her total votes from the WFP line when she first ran for Senate in 2000, which increased to 5 percent of her total vote in 2006. In September, Clinton's former campaign manager for her 2000 Senate run, New York City Councilman Bill DeBlasio, who has been endorsed by the WFP, beat two long-established politicians in the Democratic primary. Critics also accuse the Working Families Party of having a long association with the troubled activist group, ACORN. Bertha Lewis, ACORN's CEO, is one of the party's co-founders. The New York Times reported this month that "Patrick Gaspard, the White House political director, worked with ACORN in New York to set up the Working Families political party and sat on the party's board with Ms. Lewis."

The WFP has also endorsed New York Democratic Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, who was one of only seven Senators who voted against cutting federal housing funds to ACORN in September. "

SO, I guess FOX will be vilified for reporting on this. I wonder what kind of lies and BS will be coming from the "Media Controllers" at the White House? Where were those checks and balances and where were those election officials during all this? When will the "Obama stole the Election" bumper stickers be available?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Actually, at the time marriage was a union between a man and a woman *of the same race*.

Still baffles me that opponents of gay marriage don't see the irony in that, especially black voters.