The platform that Rush gets and that is legitimized when we play the opposites game, reveals the nature of the hate speech that is considered 'acceptable'.

In the name of 'humor'

McCain is not a great thinker; he's a believer. He has been indoctrinated by the Naval Academy.

Here's A Rush gem:

Clinton's testicle lockbox is big enough for the entire Democrat hierarchy, not just some people in the media. ... Her lockbox, her testicle lockbox can handle everybody in the Democrat hierarchy."

Playing the opposites game it becomes:

McCains clitoris lockbox is big enough for the entire Republican hierarchy, not just some in people in the media..... His lockbox, his clitoris lockbox can handle everyone in the Republican hierarchy.

I am suggesting that some have become so blinded by partisanship and so numbed down to what is the hate speech that is the Rush Limbaugh show, that they don't even see it for what it is.

So the shock and awe over Rev. Wright's statements is puzzling when considered in context of what some consider to be 'civilized discourse' put forth by Rush Limbaugh.

by Tom Tomorrow showing how the definition of marriage "never" changes, and that's pretty much what you're running with here. But as Bill Bennett said, it's an argument you've already lost.

That's right: uber-conservative Bill Bennett has acknowledged that the same-sex marriage debate is already over, and what we're witnessing are simply the growing pains of the developing policy. This entire country will have same-sex marriage within a generation or two, and a generation or two later, people will wonder why this was ever a debate in the first place.

So it was with miscegenation laws, so it will be with these.

Point of order on your argument, by the way. You're holding to a logical fallacy as the basis of your defense (specifically this one ): since homosexuality wasn't recognized as a legitimate identity until a century ago, it hardly makes sense to argue about cultural habits thousands of years ago. Yes, there was no gay marriage back then because there were no "gay people" per se.

loses.

I have seen a big increase in the organized religions coming out against it and trying to instill their bigotry into their flock. It'll work with some of the flock. Some, not so much. And those of us who aren't a member of their flock, well...I guess that's why Prop 8 looks like it'll go down in flames.

I understand why those that are freaked out about this want to do it now & not wait. If you wait it becomes common & just like the normal background. Then they've lost their whole godly argument.

So...I do stand by what I said earlier. There are gay conservatives. There are gay republicans who've recently taken advantage of California's outlook and they fully agree gays should be able to have the very same rights as straights. No one is asking for any special rights. Just the same rights.

So...I'll accept that more conservatives are against gays being able to marry. But not all. The libertarians & the fiscal conservatives still think that isn't part of governments realm. The right wing religious..well they agree with you. And I say that openly because the attitudes you are describing as being part of the "conservatives" makeup are the very same attitudes as held by the hard core Islamists, Jewish & Hindu. Some don't seem to like the non-christian conservatives very much. Funny thing is both groups share an amazing amount of values but they won't admit to being so similar. I see it. Others do too.

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Ballot_summary_language

Unless the wording is changed or inaccurately portrayed, the amendment is useless, since it would be unconsitutional.