That could be the title of nearly any radical right website. Choice in who you marry, what religion you follow, what you do in your bedroom. Ironically, one of the things they will let you choose actually kills, what kind of automatic weapon would you like to buy?

I saw her in concert in Iowa City and she does not disappoint when she puts on a show. I hope her HBO thing works out.

When you're conducting a war, are the people you are attacking supposed to be "pro-American"? I think some of this mentality started with the whole "we'll be treated as liberators" concept that was used as a justification for entering Iraq. You simply need to imagine how any American citizen would have felt if some larger country (China perhaps) invaded the US a few years ago and 'liberated' us from George Bush. I couldn't stand the man, but the last thing I would want is some other country coming in with their military to take him out of power.

Now we're under some impression that we should carry out a war that limits the deaths of American soldiers, or perhaps does not yield any American deaths at all. Although that would be nice, this is akin to a boot stepping on an anthill. We protect our troops with far superior technology and firepower, but cannot be selective in who we kill with it. And it riles up whatever ants didn't get the boot.

But where is this Vagistonia? I'll be bringing my own food if I ever visit.

Honestly. The anti-marriage groups are just as much at fault for creating this circus as any pro-marriage groups; maybe more so since they are so prone to (and adept at) fear-mongering.

Someone's annoyance that a marriage certificate says Party A/Party B cannot compare to the hurdles a committed gay couple has to go through to even approach having the same legal rights as a married straight couple. And if you're upset about the wording, pass a law to change the wording, don't pass a law to constitutionally rescind what are essentially equal rights.

Gay marriage doesn't favor the minority above the majority; it doesn't do much of anything to the majority. Gay marriages have been happening for years in Massachusetts. Does that even show up on the average person's radar. Either let gays get married, or don't let there be any form of civil marriage at all. Then you can have all your churchy little weddings with the "Bride" and "Groom" names written on your certificates that you can frame and hang above your bed and masturbate to.

That was atrocious!

The democratic party should be encouraging this kind of open forum, not criticizing it.

What is the definition of religious? Mr. Carse states that he is religious because he allows himself to wonder about the existence of the matter around us. I believe many atheists also feel the same sense of wonder. Fireflies, thunderstorms, so many parts of our existence on earth are amazing and awe-inspiring. But I don't commit this existence to any one god. Does Mr. Carse? If he does not perhaps he is an atheist as well.

The TSA won't listen to the public; as you say, we're the suspects. But if the men and women in the cockpit continue to expose the inconsistencies and inanities of the current screening system, maybe there's a greater chance procedures will improve.

I believe today's airplane security relies heavily on the vigilance of other passengers. Exhausting and disgruntling them during the screening procedure does not help.

As an Iowa voter, I would just like to clear up a little the perceived lack of support for Kucinich (and Dodd, Biden, Gravel).

The first part of the caucuses is determining the "viability" of the candidate. To be "viable", a candidate must have at least 15% of the total number of caucusers at the precinct supporting him/her. If the candidate does not have 15%, then his/her supporters must either support a "viable" candidate, or not be counted.

Because Kucinich did not have 15% in any precinct, he was not eligible to receive any delegates, and therefore his vote count was "0". But this does not mean he had no support! In fact, in my precinct he had more supporters than Joe Biden.

Unfortunately, having a little support everywhere gets you nada in the Iowa caucus.

Regardless of whether or not the persons asking those questions on gays serving in the military or the legality of abortion were plants, the questions they asked are completely valid. Protecting the candidates from their detractors during the debates only blinds the voters to how these candidates will react when they are president and subject to much harsher criticism than they are getting now.