Historically speaking, adultry as a reason for a woman to divorce a man is a relatively recent development. Men have ALWAYS been able to commit adultry and women have had no rights in the matter, and BTW, divorce has always been an option for wealthy and high-ranking men (except, of course, when Henry wanted his second divorce).

Adultry for a religious person is breaking God's law and God will do the judging. Under most state laws, it's also reason to file for dissolution of the marriage. And, again, it's something that was included in the law for protection of women.

Your harrange against all Christians is odd, and your insistance that all Christians be without sin is even odder. The entire basis of Christian belief...

I honestly do not understand why gays and their activist supporters are making this such a huge issue. Most people would support legal domestic partnership laws, and if benefits accrue to a married heterosexual couple, the laws could be tweeked to include a gay couple. Why such angst over it being called marriage? From the beginning, if a culture had an institution of heterosexual couples, it was all about the legality of children and inheritance. That's why it was so very important that the female half were a virgin. Men--bless them--have always been quite protective of their 'seed'.

The history of marriage in post-Christian, Western culture was only really important to land-holders and barons and it included separate...

You are kidding me? That's like requiring a camera pass for the shark cut-out at Universal Studios.

This is one "communications director" who should probably clear his/her desk out pronto and conisder another line of work. Like Grayson telling a reporter that the "rules" required he get an appointment. If these people really think these are the "rules", then we are seriously just a few months away from shovel-ready gullags.

I know how small Cannon Offices are. Belief me. If a staff member got into a shoving match with a constituent, the rest of the staff would know about it.

The young man answering the phone asked for my source of this story...I gave him citations and names and he "assured" me he would "get on this right away." OOOOOOkaydoakay. Somebody's lying here. Big time.

Matthew, how, precisely, does reciting historical facts make me a bigot? (I'm assuming it's me you're naming as such) Marriage is under law a legal contract, and the various state and federal laws involving taxes, insurance, etc. have evolved during this century to protect women and children. Unlike men--even homosexual ones--women weren't confired ANY legal rights until the last century. Matthew, I do not oppose legal domestic partnerships. If both partners work, then I have no problem with the couple paying the "marriage penalty" tax. If one wants to be the "head of household", so be it. And if the two of you want to call yourselves "married", so be that also. I know a couple who have lived together for 15 years without benefit...

"Why exactly is a polygamous group, which used to exist openly before same-sex marriage was ever an issue, and which still exist in Arizona and Texas, the next step on the slippery slope?"

Polygamy is one of the most abhorrent practices ever, in any society, including ancient ones. And, BTW, God never blessed polygamy even though it was practiced.

You refer to the sickening abuse in Arizona and Utah as wedded bliss? You need to read up on Warren Jeffs who is nothing but a filthy pedophile. Practiced openly in this country? No. Joseph Smith invented it to excuse his rapine and affairs. Why do you think Mormons were chased out of Illinois and Missouri? Polygamy became public and the public (and law) were appalled. ...

You say, "So marriage can evolve to protect certain individuals...but MUST stop to protect gay Americans? Why? It is a religious institution, but you don't have to be religious to partake in it. In fact, you can do everything BUT be religious and still have your marriage honored by the state. A murderer in prison can legally get married, but a gay Christian cannot??"

No, no, no. What I said was that it's perfectly legal for gays to establish legal partnerships which would give the gay partners the same privileges--and penalties--under the law accorded married couples. You seem to be saying that the laws which evolved to protect women and children against male domination needs to be extended to gay couples. It can be. What you...

One shooter id'd as MAJ. MALIK NADAL HASAN. He doesn't sound much like a Tea Party person to me. Not at all.

Seriously, I'd love to understand the illogic of leftist hate and reasoning. Seriously. Why would you say that this person, whom I'm going to guess is a Muslim, would be right wing? The right--libertarians--do not have a violent history. From the bombing of the Capitol, to bombing homes of prosecutors, to robbery, to defacing art work, to killing policemen, it has always been the left. Even the guy who shot the guard at the Holocaust Museum was a leftist. Why would you deduce that it was a right-wing person or a Republican when there isn't even any historical evidence that these average citizens resort to...

"sceptyczny writes: Thursday, November, 05, 2009 5:00 PM
a set up
for lunatic reactionaries.

You don't get your way, you'll do what, burn the capital down?"

No, sceptyczny, that's what the left does. Bomb the Capitol, police stations, throw rocks, destroy artwork. I've been around Washington for many years and the ONLY people who think they have the right to close down institutions and destroy lives and property for their cause is the left. Always, invariably, it's the left. The bullet holes in the House Chamber were put there by the left. Even the recent shooting at the Holocaust Museum was done by the LEFT (NAZI's are leftists--the "extreme" right are libertarians).

The Constitution guarantees...

Dear NeoConScum, putting one's hands on another person in an aggressive manner is assault. Period. If these liars continue, hope the Smart Politics lady files charges. Isn't the FBI the correct agency? They are the police on federal property.