Why isn't the debate why the states gives saction to any religious ceremony?

Marriage is a religous status, what the state offers is a civil contract between two people.

Let's take the middle ground, civil unions for everybody, marriage for those who wish to have a shaman or some such recite an incantation afterwords on their own time.

This seems like the most practical way to deal with the whole issue, while allowing the specific isntitutions (such as Roman Catholic Marriage) to continue to exist in their private function for those wishing them.

I'm sure somewhere there's a church that marries gay people, so gay people can already be married, it's just that their civil contracts aren't recognized because the state is utilizing inapropriate termonology to describe their institutions.

Just a thought.

That's why it was on...It was a set from the start no doubt, or maybe not.

They booked a right wing talking head, MSNBC recycles through these people on the left and the right on a regular basis (they've got 24 hours to fill), and it was probably just this guys day to be on, and this was in the news, and the dolt took the bad tac of thinking he was on his own show and controlled the debate.

He was probably just a filler guest, it may have even been his audition for a more regular role (like Rachel Madow has). Whether or not getting torn a new one by the boss means his audtion went well or went poorly we'll have to see.

You know...apeaseing the Nazi's seems like a bad idea in retrospect, but at the time, this was a strongly held and popular idea among many people on all sides of the political spectrum.

The world had just given a rather large chunck of their young men to keep France free, and people were uncertain it was worth it to do so again.

Heck Pat Buchanan not too long ago wrote a book arguing for apeasement, because on a pure cost benefit analysis for the U.S. that was the way to go.

Of course discussing apeasement is a great canard just because we now all agree the Nazi's were pretty much supervillians out to destroy humanity for humanity's sake. And while a similar argument is made for Alquieda, it's much harder to make that case with regard to Iran, Syria, or North Korea.

Certainly these countries are dangerous and need to be watched, but so is Germany, as we learned so many years ago.

And perhaps, if we had taken a more engaged dialouge with the Nazi's a great deal of human suffering might have been avaoided. The problem with the Nazi's wasn't apeasement, it was allowing the Nazi's free reign over much of Europe. If Iran invades Isreal, we should retaliate. If however Iran is making threats, we would be fools not to engage them and try to difuse the war that would come from such an action.

Rewarding a dictator with isolation does nothing to weaken the dictator, engagement however forces such men to open their positions to negotiation, and eventual disolution.

With Hillary Clinton, you have admit there is a little Chicken Egg questions with regard to Misogyny.

Yes people took the low road with her, a lot! But was that low road taken because she was a woman, or because she was Hillary Clinton and carried a great deal of Dragon Lady baggage with her from the start.

It doesn't excuse the low road, but it takes some of the sting off it.

People have used colorfull discriptives of Hillary Clinton, but colorfull discriptives have been used for George Bush, and Al Gore, and every politician of all stripes genders and orientations.

That uniquely feminine colloquialisms were used for Senator Clinton has about as much to do with her being a woman as uniquely male colloquialisms used against male candidates. People may have called her a B, but people call the president (and the VP) a D on a regular basis (infact the Daily Show has a running gag on the subject).

So yes, there is a lingering highschool mentality in our society, but we are also (as Senator Clinton has shown us) a rather racist society as well, and yet Barak Obama has risen largly above it to inspire people. So perhaps there is something to think about in that as well.

You know...it kind of strikes me that every example offered (with the possible example of the Nut Craker, which is ment as "joke" all be it an unfunny one) is excusable as an attack on Senator Clinton Herself, and not necessisarily and attack on her as a woman.

Calling her a scolding mother, points out that she's scolding, not that she's a mother. And depending on the context was possibly entirely apprpropriate.

Being called cold, or a whore, or any other item doesn't deride someone for being a woman, it derides them for who they are perceived as. The arguments may be wholely untrue, but they are legitimate arguments if that is someones perception.

All reports from those who know him best state that Richard Cheney is a warm loving grandfather who cares deeply about his country and its people. But he's still a Dick to most people, and his status as a Dick isn't because he's a man, it's because he's a Dick, at least in some peoples minds.

John Kerry and Al Gore were both wooden, distant, and cold. They were often dimunized by their opponents, as many on the left dimunize George W. Bush.

Yes Misogyny exists, but criticism of a woman isn't by it's self proof of misogyny. Any more than intra-feminist criticism is misogynistic.