The majority of California does NOT want gay marriage...hence the majority vote to pass Proposition 22. HOWEVER, the California Supreme Court WAS within the perimeters of it's authority to strike the ban due to State Constitutional requirements.

NOW, IF the people of California get a State Constitutional Amendment on the ballot banning gay marriage and it PASSES, THEN the amendment will become part of the State Constitution and cannot be striken down by the State Supreme Court.

For that matter, I seriously doubt it could be striken down by the US Supreme Court...but I could be wrong about that one.

tammyah45,

"I agree with Garrison in this article and I'm a conservative.... However, Bush should have been impeached and I fault the DFL and Nancy Pelosi for failing to have Bush/Cheney impeached.... But of course, Nancy and company want for themselves the power Bush/Cheney have amassed when either BO or Billery take the oval office...."

What would be the charge for impeachment? I frankly find it unbelievable that Pelosi, et al would not work mightly to impeach President Bush AND Cheney if there were sufficient evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor to do it with. So, I am curious as to what high crime or misdemeanor he would be charged with.

-

"I have one word that would put an end to this war. Draft. Ain't gonna happen of course, just like W will never stand trial for war crimes -- he's completely sheltered and protected and they will never get to him. Plus as I understand it, the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441) was rewritten a couple of years ago, making everything they're doing now legal."

No draft...so true. Which begs the question: If you AREN'T being drafted into fighting the war, WHY are you complaining? Answer: because you want the money being spent there to go to other social experimental things and you resent the fact the money goes to the military.

Most people protesting the war are doing so NOT because of the cost of life (which is FAR less, as far as the US is concerned than people think) - it's because of the loss of financial resources. That's what it's all about really.

So...just as you think the war is about oil, I think protests of the war is about distribution of funds.

"Choosing warfare as a "career" in today's America is either morally indefensible or literally psychotic. In either case the only thing about it worth memorializing is the shame our country should feel for lauding and encouraging it."

Sir, the ONLY reason it would be illogical to choose military life for a career is the fact that they have to defend you right to say stupid things like the above. You obviously have no idea what military life it like.

I suggest, as you are a NRA member, that you try to look at what soldiers do for a living and what they are required to do to be promoted and to progress in their careers BEFORE you make uninformed blanket statements like saying most soldiers are uneducated.

"If it isn't native Iraqis fighting us, it must be Al Qaeda? That statement only makes sense if a) you seriously believe that no native Iraqis are fighting us, and b) that all "terrorists" are "Al Qaeda." In which case, you probably think that McCain knew what he was talking about when he said that Iran (a Shi'ite Muslim stronghold) was training Al Qaeda (Sunni Muslims). That's like saying that the Rev. Ian Paisley was training IRA Catholic terrorists. Unlikely!!"

Ok...perhaps I should have expanded on my opinion. I believe it is not the AVERAGE Iraqi fighting the US. There ARE Iraqi citizens who have joined Al Qaeda in fighting the US...but you cannot say ALL Al Qaeda fighting the US are Iraqi citizens either. There are far more Iraqi citizens who want us there than those who do not.

"The native Iraqis wouldn't attack us? You think not, even after our bombs and our trigger-happy Blackwater mercenaries have killed a lot of innocent civilians? After we smashed their infrastructure to heck,occupied their country for five years, and failed to restore even the most minimal services? You don't think that most normal human beings would find that just a wee bit humiliating, and maybe even get angry enough to set a bomb or two in the path of the invaders?"

Oh give me a break Susan. You think we are just going in there and shooting ANYONE who gets in the way? Do you REALLY think the US Army wants (or NEEDS - if we are talking about public affairs) soldiers to just shoot without concern for civilians?

Have you ever heard of Rules of Engagement? Generally speaking, you cannot shoot at an enemy, even if he's shooting at YOU, if you are in certain areas of Iraq in which civilians can be injured.

As for their infrastructure, if there HAD been an infrastructure to smash that might be the case. Have you ever seen the country BEFORE we entered it? There really wasn't an infrastructure to speak of. And we have made many headroads into creating one for them. "Failed to restore the most minimal services?" Are you kidding? We now have electricity going to places where they never had it before.