I am so sick of this subject, as I am sure most of heterosexual America is as well. The truth is that a lot of people on both sides of this issue simply do not understand why the other side feels the way they do about it.

For those of you on my side of the fence, this isn’t a religious issue for most of the people that oppose gay marriage. Stop swallowing the BS coming out of the DNC about how bible-beaters want to invade your bedrooms and haul you off to jail. Most Americans, as I do, believe that marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. It isn’t something that is up for debate. You don’t wake up one morning and decide that the world is indeed flat several hundred years after it was proven to be round. This isn’t about God – it is about fundamentally changing the definition of an institution that is engrained in every single culture on the face of this planet. Moreover, this isn’t the American people deciding this issue; it is rogue judges with liberal agendas legislating from the bench. I don’t care whether you are gay or straight – if you don’t have a problem with that concept then you are un-American – period. We have three branches of government with their own responsibilities. When you start letting one do something it isn’t supposed to be doing, chaos will ensue – period. These are not morally negotiable things if you believe in the rule of law and you believe in this country and how our system is supposed to work.

That being said, for those on the other side of the fence – get a grip. 99.9% of gay people do not want to run naked down main street USA. The other .1% that do are our version of “white trash” and they probably don’t have any business being naked in public anyway. It is quite likely that we would shriek in horror just like most of you would. We don’t want to recruit your children either. This isn’t the dark-side of the force here. Stop swallowing that “gay agenda” BS.

So, what do we want? Well, imagine this. You come home to find your wife/husband hanging by the neck from a doorway. Grief stricken, you call the police and when they arrive, they remove you from the premises because your name is not on the lease, it is in your wife’s/husband’s. The police won’t tell you whether it was foul play or suicide – in fact, they won’t tell you anything. As far as they are concerned, you are the one the found the body and that’s it. Then, days later after the funeral, they still refuse to let you back in to the home you shared with your wife/husband for the last 10 years. This isn’t some nutty scenario that would never happen, it did happen to someone we know, recently – and, in of all places, San Francisco. What we want is not to be told our relationships don’t matter.

I am lucky enough to work for a company that offers Domestic Partnership insurance. I have worked for this company for 12 years and never had a need to use it until recently. So brassguy can use my insurance when he goes to the hospital, but I can’t visit him because I am not “family” – go figure.

I blame this confusion on gay activists, rogue judges – and Gavin Newsom. Instead of sitting down and trying to win support for civil unions to address issues straight couples take for granted and to try to foster an understanding of the issues gay couples face, they run to activist judges that are all too willing to legislate from the bench; they openly DEFY California state law to further their own political careers. And in doing so, they alienate the people whose understanding and cooperation we need.

It is no wonder that there is a lot of animosity on both side of the issue, but let’s get one thing straight (no pun intended): The vast majority of people that believe that “marriage” should be between a man and woman do not hate gay people. Likewise, most gay people would settle for legal arrangements, regardless of they are called, that protect us from discrimination.

Both sides have an honest gripe here. How freaking hard can it be to satisfy the majority on both sides of this if we would just try to understand the other point-of-view?

Well this is very disappointing.

WASHINGTON — Bernard Kerik, New York City’s former top cop, withdrew his name from consideration to be President Bush’s homeland security secretary, a victim of the embarrassing “nanny problem” that has killed the nominations of other prominent officials.

The surprise move late Friday sends Bush back in search of a Cabinet official to help guard the nation against another terrorist attack.

While assembling paperwork for his Senate confirmation, Kerik said he uncovered questions about the immigration status of a housekeeper-nanny that he employed. As homeland security secretary, Kerik would oversee the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

“I am convinced that, for personal reasons, moving forward would not be in the best interests of your administration, the Department of Homeland Security or the American people,” Kerik said in a letter to Bush.

I thought Kerik was an excellent choice. I do think the whole “nanny” thing may not be all there is to his reason for withdrawing. Kerik doesn’t stike me as the type to just fold it in unless the consequences of not doing so were too high – and having to explain a nanny problem to the Senate doesn’t seem to me like something that qualifies as too high.

A big thank you to all of our Veterans for their sacrifice for their country and countrymen.

Jimmy Carter, dipshit extraordinaire, praises the life of the murderer and terrorist Arafat:

MIAMI (AFP) – Former US President Jimmy Carter called Yasser Arafat (news – web sites) “a powerful human symbol and forceful advocate” who united Palestinians in their pursuit of a homeland.

“Yasser Arafat’s death marks the end of an era and will no doubt be painfully felt by Palestinians throughout the Middle East and elsewhere in the world,” Carter said.

“He was the father of the modern Palestinian nationalist movement. A powerful human symbol and forceful advocate, Palestinians united behind him in their pursuit of a homeland,” he said in a statement distributed by his Atlanta, Georgia-based Carter Center.

He said that while Arafat provided “indispensable leadership to a revolutionary movement” and played a key role in forging a peace agreement with Israel in 1993, he was excluded from negotiations in recent years.

“My hope is that an emerging Palestinian leadership can benefit from Arafat’s experiences, be welcomed to the peace process by (Israeli) Prime Minister (Ariel) Sharon and (US) President (George W.) Bush, and be successful in helping to forge a Palestinian state living in harmony with their Israeli neighbors,” Carter said.

Both Carter and Arafat are Nobel peace prize laureates.

Arafat, who died at a Paris hospital early Thursday, was to be buried at his West Bank headquarters after a military funeral ceremony in Cairo Friday.

Carter “will not be attending the funeral,” said Jon Moor, a Carter Center spokesman.

I have a few adjustments I think Jimmy should have made:

MIAMI (AFP) – Former US President Jimmy Carter called Yasser Arafat a murdering terrorist that provided the worst example of how united Palestinians should behave in their pursuit of a homeland.

“Yasser Arafat’s death marks the end of a murderous and brutal era and will no doubt be painfully felt by Palestinians that share his terrorist ambitions throughout the Middle East and elsewhere in the world but will be met with great joy by the families of Arafat’s victims.” Carter said.

“He was the father of the modern Palestinian terrorist network. A powerful human symbol of evil and forceful advocate of terrorism to attain one’s goals, Palestinians united behind him in their pursuit of a homeland,” he said in a statement distributed by his Atlanta, Georgia-based Carter Center.

He said that while Arafat provided “reprehensible leadership to a terrorist movement” and played a key role in derailing a peace agreement with Israel in 1993, he was excluded from negotiations in recent years because he simply was not and never would be a partner for peace.

“My hope is that an emerging Palestinian leadership will renounce terrorism and not follow in Arafat’s footsteps, be welcomed to the peace process by (Israeli) Prime Minister (Ariel) Sharon and (US) President (George W.) Bush, and be successful in helping to forge a Palestinian state living in harmony with their Israeli neighbors,” Carter said.

Oddly, both Carter and Arafat are Nobel peace prize laureates, which brings into serious question the value of such a designation.

Arafat, who died at a Paris hospital early Thursday, was to be buried at his West Bank headquarters after a military funeral ceremony in Cairo Friday.

Carter “will not be attending the funeral of a terrorist,” said Jon Moor, a Carter Center spokesman.

There, that’s more like it.

The Johns don’t seem to have much to say about Australia’s landslide rejection of anti-war candidate Mark Latham in favor of stalwart ally John Howard.

Of course, I am not surprised. John Kerry would rather bash our allies than acknowledge that a majority of our Australian cousins rejected his and Latham’s distorted point of view.

UPDATE: In the interest of fairness…

It looks like the lefty-loonies are going for a hostile takeover of the the Democratic Party.

“We’re going to celebrate with John Kerry the night of Nov. 2. But the morning of Nov. 3, we’re going to start organizing to take the party away from him, because we have serious disagreements about what the party should stand for and where this country needs to go,” said one activist at the “What We Stand For” conference, Bertha Lewis, co-chair of the Working Families Party in New York state and a leader in the grassroots antipoverty group, ACORN.

“In 2004, we have to elect anyone but Bush,” said a veteran labor strategist working to link unions with other progressive groups. “But if we keep working and build on the lessons learned and the partnerships we’re forging during this fight against Bush, we can elect somebody we really like four or eight years from now.”

Great, so if you do manage to elect John Kerry, god forbid, you plan to spend the next four years diverting his attention from the War on Terror for your own selfish purposes – great plan, moonbats.

Tommy Franks had a few choice words regarding John Kerry today. I wonder how long it will be before the DNC & Terry McNoLife try to blame Franks for global warming?

“If his voting record ruled the day, Saddam Hussein would not only be running Iraq but Kuwait,” Franks told about 200 people Sunday at a Reno rally.

“The choice is very, very clear. We need decisive, strong, no-backing-down and no-equivocating leadership,” he said. Franks praised the Democratic challenger’s military service during the Vietnam War, but said Kerry’s later anti-war activities upset him.

“The men I served with in Vietnam weren’t war criminals and I’m proud I served with them,” Franks said.

“I know a commander in chief when I see one and there’s only one on the ballot,” Franks said. “After September 11th, we were blessed to have a commander in chief who said enough is enough.

“There are two options: to fight them (terrorists) over there or to fight them over here. I’m an over-there-kind-of-guy,” he said.

In an interview before the rally, Franks said he doesn’t foresee an endless cycle of violence in Iraq, and he thinks violence will diminish after the Nov. 2 election.

“I believe they (insurgents) are influenced by what they see in our media,” he told The Associated Press. “They see if they blow something up it’s front-page news … (and) the presidential candidates will talk about it.

“After Nov. 2, that dynamic will leave. The problem won’t go away, but it’ll be diminished … This will be a long process, but there will come a time when the insurgents have less opportunity to create mischief for us,” he said.

The typical response from Kamp Kerry:

Kerry spokesman Sean Smith accused Franks of distorting Kerry’s Senate voting record.

“He reads (Bush political aide) Karl Rove’s talking points very well,” Smith said. “John Kerry voted for the largest defense appropriation in American history and the largest intelligence appropriation in American history. No matter how many attacks they make on John Kerry, it won’t obscure the fact that George Bush has gotten us into a quagmire in Iraq.”

Poor Johnny – he just can’t catch a break. The Swifties are going to air a new ad while Sinclair Broadcasting Group is going to air an unflattering documentary on Kerry’s antiwar activities.

I did come across one quote in the NY Times story about the documentary that particularly struck me. In response to being offered a chance to respond after the documentary aired, Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton had this to say:

“It’s hard to take an offer seriously from a group that is hellbent on doing anything to help elect President Bush even if that means violating basic journalism standards.”

Would those be the same basic journalism standards that Mary Mapes and Dan Rather threw aside when they used forged documents in an attempt to smear the president’s Texas Air National Guard service?

Or maybe it was the basic journalistic standards Richard Schlesinger of CBS News defecated on when he tried to scare the bejezus out of people by using a faked email to stir up fear of an impending draft?

No, he must be talking about ABC’s Political Director sending an email to ABC journalists telling them that it was their duty not to “hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable”.

How does Kerry get through doors with that enormous cross on his back?

Hindrocket@Power Line posts Reader Eric Baker makes an interesting observation:

“What do Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, Capt. George M. Elliott, and now Dr. Phillip Bouffard all have in common? They were all misquoted in the Boston Globe.
What’s more, there seems to be a pattern. The Globe quotes, the source objects, the MSM refers to it as a “recantation,” the Globe stands by its story and claims to be relying on what the source “originally said.” We have an identical situation with Sharon Bush (Kitty Kelly) and a similar set of circumstances with Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges (CBS).

It’s almost as if interviewing these people was just a formality, allowing for the appearance of investigative journalism. In the meantime, they write whatever they wish. If the person quoted never speaks up, great. If they do, then just claim what the person says now is not what they were saying before and it becomes a kind of draw, which is really a victory for them. The public is now left with the impression that it’s unclear what really happened when there was never any evidence to support the allegation in the first place.”

Five years ago I they would get away with it too! NOT THIS YEAR!