DISQUS

You might be grasping here. A Catholic priest does not perform a wedding as much as he sanctifies it. Marriage in this sense is Sacrament, not a contract, where the church sanctifies a love giving, life giving union that becomes a family. The social contract required by a state is already fulfilled when a couple shows up with the license. The church does not refuse to marry, but declines to sanctify it. The state cannot force a church to sanctify anything against that church's criteria - that would be legally untenable. It would be akin to a Christian couple bringing suit against a synagogue, or vis-a-verse, for not marrying them in the rites of Judaism.

As a Sacrament, marriage and Holy Orders (ordination) are just like Communion and Reconciliation (confession) for professed members. it would be unconstitutional for the state to force any church to administer their rites on any it deemed as a nonbeliever. You might be able to litigate without the Divine, as in: "do you swear to tell the truth, nothing but the . . ." , but you can't litigate against it.

I don't think any moral high ground can be claimed by the Democrats on this issue because we all saw, and maybe still see, the same attitude and couched language from the Clinton campaign. Just when I thought we were beyond this sort of thing as a society, baser elements have reared their ugly heads.

In light of that, I felt it extraordinary that Colin Powell came out as he did, in the terms that he did - as if to challenge the McCain campaign to come after him the same way. In one swoop he undercut the whole "funny named, terrorist-black guy, socialist" line. Maybe we need to hear this stuff denounced once and for all - a swan song for the ignorant. Change is really somethin', ain't ti?

Bravo! I found and came to this site when I was google searching Miss Donna: I was looking for a clip of one of her appearances on cable news when she spoke out against the tone and timbre of Hillary's racist remarks, both couched and blatant. That was quite a while ago. I must say that for the most part, I have found a more refreshing take on things here that usually rises above the partisan shouting matches elsewhere. And this clip brings it all full circle for me - Obama has brought change already, starting with the Democratic party. When racism jumped out of their closet, it contradicted their mantra of the party that embraced diversity. But now we see the Republicans try the same thing. Don't they know it didn't work? But maybe, just maybe, the negative campaigning will backfire and we can move much closer to the ideal we deserve. Donna Brazile is one of my heroes. She can cook for me any time.

My problem here is with the foundation of the whole mess: people who qualified for these loans but couldn't keep up the payments. If we make more people qualified, more will go to foreclosure.

If government oversight is such a good thing, why did Fanny May and Freddie Mac go belly up? An executive board? Do we want more power in the already top heavy bureaucracy? Why did both parties wait 'til now to do anything? Can we have this board anointed against witchcraft? Or anointed against financial lobbyists - too late, congress is lousy with them.

And I know that emotionally we want the fat cat executives to not walk away from these financial car wrecks with large packages, but would we want to be operated on by a doctor who makes minimum wage? Should a multi billion dollar institution be run by a guy who makes 200 or 300 grand? I wouldn't want that job.

I live in New York where a state comptroller (Hevesi) had to resign for misappropriation of funds, his predecessor (Carl McCall) was a front for a board (Madelaine Albright, David Rockefeller, Vernon Jordan) that signed off for an over 100 million dollar package for Grasso when he exited as the head of the New York Stock Exchange, a Governor resigned after it was discovered that he had secret accounts to finance sexscapades with hookers, and our favorite son Charlie Rangle, who heads the Ways and Means Congressional committee, is under investigation on three different counts - one being not understanding the very tax code of which he is the author! Do we really want these people working on the problem. Maybe we should let it all collapse and when the smoke clears, the strong might survive. I'm for God and country, not Morgan Stanley.

Let's not let "them" frame our conversation: we're comparing a presidential candidate with the opposing VP pick. She has been on display for two weeks, not two years. Any one who heard her stammer on about going to war with Russia over a pseudo NATO member, with the same tone and timbre with which she explained a bridge to nowhere, should have a grasp of who put the lipstick on what. Or is that sexist?

Then again, I didn't vote 'til I was 26, don't have a college education, should have had a DWI, and belonged to a group that advocated the secession of Northern Ireland from Britain.

Are the Democrats the masters of vetting vice presidential candidates? Edwards is shunned for a scandal, Lieberman is shunned as he speaks at the Republican convention, and the historic first woman VP pick is shunned for racist remarks. And now we hear criticisms of Palin because she should be tending her special needs infant and watching her teenage daughter. Isn't this a lot like the old "keep 'em in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant? And this after over a year and a half of proclamations attending Hillary's historic but futile primary fight. What are we to think about the supposedly progressive party? Ideology aside, Palin is a real woman with a real family, dealing with real issues - is that what scares her opposition? And even considering ideology, there are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, and there are many pro-life women who supported Hillary despite her stand on the issue. The base of both parties are virtually fixed but Palin does present compelling choices to independents.

As an Obama supporter, i watched how his own party tried to frame and marginalize him. Some people never learn. It just might be that the Republicans are setting up the Dems to undermine themselves.