Eharmony SUCKS! Class action lawsuit underway!

[green 6]

MsDad, you ought to move to Canada. Lousy climate but no legal nor financial discrimination. You can even get married. And this month is Pride month in my town. Yippee!

[BJean 16]

Eddie, you're a cool dude. I wish I could single handedly make things right for you and your man.

[anonemouse 1]

Yep, it sickens me that folks like you and your hubby can't legally marry, when it's perfectly legal for some of the other folks on this site.

[AshevilleEddie 14]

We were going to get married next spring in Massachusetts, but Mitt Romney invoked a 1913 law that states in a nutshell that if your marriage would not be recognized in your home state, you can't get married in MA. They are working to try and get that law repealed, but I doubt it will happen before we head up there for vacation next year. And DH doesn't want to get married in Canada (nothing against Canada, he just wants to get married in the US) so we won't be legal for a while yet...

[AshevilleEddie 14]

Hey Lauren, I just noticed that you're getting your band the same day I'm getting my first fill! We'll have an anniversary to Celebrate together! :high5:

[anonemouse 1]

Hey Lauren, I just noticed that you're getting your band the same day I'm getting my first fill! We'll have an anniversary to Celebrate together!

Yep, I can't wait. Good luck with your fill! I hope you get restriction!

[AshevilleEddie 14]

I've actually got fairly good restriction still, only seems to "open wide and say ahh" at night. And even that's not all the time. Tonight, I could only eat 1/2 of an average sized hamburger (no bun) and about 1/4 cup of cauliflower. But my fill is still 3 weeks away, so I know I'll need it by then...

[susannah 2]

We were going to get married next spring in Massachusetts, but Mitt Romney invoked a 1913 law that states in a nutshell that if your marriage would not be recognized in your home state, you can't get married in MA. They are working to try and get that law repealed, but I doubt it will happen before we head up there for vacation next year. And DH doesn't want to get married in Canada (nothing against Canada, he just wants to get married in the US) so we won't be legal for a while yet...

What chutzpah telling people who they can and can't marry. I mean really. This seems to me to be a violation of one's human rights if you ask me.

Marriage is so not my thing, but I don't believe the government has the right to ban anybody from making this commitment should they so desire.

Eddie, the situation is not much better in Australia.

Susannah

[BJean 16]

I just watched a debate on whether the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy should continue in the military. Democrats against it, saying gays and lesbians should be able to serve in the military and be open about their sexual preferences. The Republicans say that they should not and that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is working.

However the question came up partially because some very needed linguists were discharged recently because they came out. Also it was brought up that a lot of gays and lesbians served in Iraq and then were discharged when they came home because they were known to be gays and lesbians.

How can anyone in their right mind think that excluding gays and lesbians in the military is the right thing? Other countries have an open policy in their militaries without regard to sexual preferences. Are we living in the dark ages, or what? Who are we to go telling other countries that they do not practice good humanitarian policies when we disciminate against a whole segment of society, based on their sexual preferences?

[Carlene 12]

How can anyone in their right mind think that excluding gays and lesbians in the military is the right thing?

I have never understood this so-called logic. How can anyone's sexual orientation have a negative influence on their ability to serve in the military? It's like saying you shouldn't be allowed in the Army if you're Jewish. Have I missed something? What is the reason the Republicans give for wanting to exclude gays from the military?

[BJean 16]

One word: Homophobia. It's a hold over from years and years of men being scared to death that gay men are going to hit on them, I guess. I mean nothing else makes any sense to me. Of course that is an extremely ignorant thought process, but what else is there?

All this talk about gays not being allowed to marry is another stupid, stupid issue. When you confront those who argue against it, and ask why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, they come up with all manner of bogus reasons, like higher health insurance premiums because of AIDS, etc. Right wingers will narrow-mindedly argue that God didn't create Adam and Adam, He created Adam and Eve. Boggles the mind, doesn't it.

Sometimes the stupidity in this country makes me want to cry. If Americans don't get rid of this administration in the next elections, I am clearly in the wrong country.

[Carlene 12]

One word: Homophobia. It's a hold over from years and years of men being scared to death that gay men are going to hit on them, I guess.

Did they learn NOTHING from the Reagans? Geez.....just say "no". How hard is that?

[anonemouse 1]

I think it is basically a foregone conclusion that there will be a Democrat in the White House, unless something really major happens. The Republican candidates just aren't that strong, especially considering that the ultra-conservatives are a pretty good chunk of their voting base. What, they're going to actually vote for someone whose pro-life stance is in severe doubt, not to mention that he's a divorced adulterer (Juliani)? Or someone who is apparently not considered to be a Christian by many ultra-conservative Christians (Romney)? Or someone who has pissed off a lot of moderate Republicans in his bid to win over conservative Republicans (McCain)? The rest are either not very well-known or, if they are well-known, like Fred Thompson, aren't 100% committed at this point.

[BJean 16]

Laurend: Recent history tells us that the Republicans will pull out all the stops to retain control of the White House. Right now it is early and they are pretty much playing by the book. But it will change when things get closer and tighter. They will wage a war over the internet. In the past they've done everything you can imagine to plant doubt in the voters' minds about the opposition. They do not mind concocting very believable stories about the Democratic candidate. During Nixon's time they did it with snail mail. This time it will be through emails.

They managed to do it to Kerry, horribly, and it worked. Although I'm the first to admit that Kerry was a weak debater and his campaign retoric became very stilted toward the latter part of his campaign. It has to be awfully difficult to go through what he and his wife went through in that campaign. Al Gore made mistakes too. His first mistake was not allowing Bill Clinton to go out and stump for him. He under estimated the power of Clinton's popularity.

But what really beat both of them was the extremely powerful and united front that the Republicans had. The fact that they have such an unpopular President at this point may cause them to splinter a bit which would hurt them. But I don't think that is likely because in these early debates, all the Republican candidates have the platform down pat. None of them seems to be willing to buck the Republican machine. And who can blame them? They could probably never get elected without it.

But after all my yammering, I just want to say that many people think that a Democrat is a shoo-in, and I absolutely believe that it is too early to know for sure because there is no end the political dirty tricks that the Republican party is capable of. (No, Democrats are not immune to dirty politics, but in the past they were not willing to go to the extremely dishonest lengths that the Republicans were.)

[anonemouse 1]

Very true. All you have to do is look at Harold Ford, Jr. to know that the Republicans are ready and willing to play dirty.