First of all, the federal government hasn't just sat back and let states regulate marriage however they wanted before. Territories like Utah had to ban polygamy as a condition for even becoming a state. Also, the interracial marriage bans were (rightly) struck down by the the U.S. Supreme court- which is a branch of the federal government. DOMA doesn't prevent the federal recognize some minor quirks and variations in some states marrriage laws, it prevents the federal government from recognizing a radical definition of marriage. And there is an argument that the Constitution's full faith and credit clause may require states to recognize other state's same-sex "marriages". Is DOMA vunerable under that clause? Anyway, If Obama...

I grow up in Hare's district in Western IL. I'm 26 and we've had a demo congressman there since before I was born. That's what happens when you live in such an obscenely gerrymandered district(IL-17). We had Lane Evans for 24 years, though I don't remember him being quite as embarassing as Hare(an former Evans staffer). I do hope that the good people of IL 17 finally have enough sense to kick this clown to the curb!

Good thing Obama is above the special interests...er except for the unions, the colleges, the feminist/abortion groups, the NAACP, the gay groups, etc. Anyway, who exactly is comparing Obama to a dog??? If anything, the liberal special interests are the people who expect him to be their obedient little pet.

What is wal-mart supposed to do? Should they artificially keep all black and white dolls at same price just to avoid looking racially insensitive here? Is it their fault that the black doll just doesn't sell as well? Are people supposed to feel guilty that they didn't buy their child the black doll?
This is just another example of the left's obsession with "diversity" and "ending discrimination". That is practically all they seem to talk about about at my university. Diversity is often a good thing, but not when it becomes an all consuming obsession that makes a big deal about trivial stuff like this(or when "diversity" is used to justify a radical alteration of a something fundamental like the institution of marriage).
...

First of all, Cooper and his team have always maintained that a trial was notnecessary. Most (if not all) other courts in this country have dealt with this issue in summary judgement. Do we really trust a judge to come up with definitive pronouncements about he future of "gay marriage" and marriage in general based on a smattering of controversial studies (and a mountian of advocacy) by social scientists? Why even let normal people vote at all? Let's just have judges and university faculties choose our laws and our leaders. I'm sure that will work out great!;) Did the prop 8 proponents do a good job? Many of their witnesses were alledgedly scared off by the very real prospect that their testimony would be on TV. Perhaps...

Why should all the blame go to Obama? Didn't Bush sign this into law?

This article seems to be blaming the whole thing on Obama, but the law creating this board was passed in 2002-when Bush was president!

This guy is some kind of libretarian, right? Half the time, he's extolling the virtues of "gay marriage". I'm not exactly sure why anyone is putting this stuff on a conservative website.
Also, the Supreme Court has consistently rejectect "same-sex marriage". See Baker V. Nelson. Even in Lawrence v. Texas, they refused to acknowledge it.

Why should republicans shy away from the marriage issue? The conservative position on marriage has won in every state where people have been allowed to vote on it!