Deseret News | Sore losers won't let go in California

Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California

714 comments | Read story

re reality check | 1:01 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

since when did paying taxes become a right?

To the weak and the weary | 1:05 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Thousands of years ago, Satan and his minions fought a battle against Christ and his followers in heaven--not a war of tanks, jets, guns and bombs, but a war of words. Much like the one we are engaged in now. And it is through logic and reason that the right side will prevail. Good always prevails over evil as long as good people continue the fight. For those who want to leave the valley because of what they believe to be intolerance on the part of the majority of residents here, I say leave only if you feel you need to continue imposing your viewpoint on those who believe in the the values of the body politic. But to say we're intolerant is an inaccurate statement. I am a firm believer in the adage, "hate the sin, but love the sinner." I hold no hate in my heart for those who make choices which I believe to be detrimental to their souls or to society as a whole. At the same time however, I don't feel we as a society should assent to behavior which should be kept a private matter between the two who engage in immoral acts.

Re: realitycheck | 1:06 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"so how does a gay couple file their taxes so they get the "married" tax rate?"

"do businesses allow gay people to put their "significant other" on their medical insurance?"

"pls explain how they have THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS as any other couple?"

Rights aren't given to couples, they are given to individuals. Guess what, I can't list a person of the same gender as my partner and and expect the same rights as heterosexual married couples either, even though I am heterosexual.

Is this helping you to see that we do have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS? I am restricted by the exact same laws that restrict you even though we apparently have different sexual preferences. Isn't it nice that neither one of our preferences has priority in this country?

Keep asking the questions realitycheck, I'm always happy to provide the simple answers.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 1:06 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

You can look up words by Martin Luther King and he publically NEVER discussed the gay issue. We also have this from PBS: "But Rustin was also seen as a political liability. He was openly gay during the fiercely homophobic era of the 40s and 50s; as a result, he was frequently shunned by the very civil rights movement he helped create."
Regarding "married tax rates" yes in California you can file as married with domestic partnership. Just be aware that you are more likely to suffer a marriage penalty so joint filing isn't preferred as you should know. Regarding insurance, some companies allow you to place your domestic partner on insurance just as some allow you to add your spouse (not all allow even legally married on insurance.) Perhaps it is you RealityCheck that needs to check the facts.

Civil unions vs. marriage | 1:08 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Californians already have civil unions. Go read the statute. Every state benefit that is conferred on marriage is also *explicitly* given to civil unions. With or without Prop 8 gays already have all the rights/benefits/protection that one state can give.

This isn't about rights. It's about forcing people to accept homosexuality as normal by hijacking the word marriage, and disregarding their right to believe as they wish and teach their beliefs to their children.

Would that we protected religious belief with the same zeal that gays want to shove their lifestyle in our face. I couldn't care less what gay people do in private. Trying to make me approve of it, or teach my children to approve of it - that will get me cranky.

Separate but Equal | 1:08 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Even if a civil union and a marriage are 100% equal in everything but name, it's still "separate but equal," (and, unfortunately, some people and businesses do chose to treat them differently).
Interracial marriage used to be an issue, and would've lost if put up to a vote. To people who say, "you can't chose to be black, you can chose to be gay:" that's debatable, and you can chose to be in an interracial relationship or a gay one.
To everyone who says "think of the children, they shouldn't be taught that gay marriage is right," what about the children of gay couples (which all studies PROVE turn out exactly the same as children of straight couples), should they be taught that their parents are sinners?
And, yes, churches should not be sued or have their tax exemptions taken away...maybe we should put together a NEW law to increase the separation of church and state to ENSURE that no churches can be sued for practicing their belief in discrimination.

Semantics | 1:09 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Major media headlines:

Obama Wins Mandate with 52% Landslide

Proposition 8 Eeks Out Narrow 52% Passage in California

re 1 human family | 1:10 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Gayness is not genetic. There is, perhaps, a pre-disposition but as yet there is no known gene which causes one to be homosexual. There just isn't. Almost every mainstream, rational, pro-gay group recognizes as much. To continually deny the impact of choice on the behavior is to willfully ignore the evidence and casts your opinion as based merely on emotion.

failed attempt | 1:11 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

@re:failed attempt ï¿½Only the pro-homosexual marriage campaign has stooped to damaging property after losing a democratic vote - despite your protests otherwise.ï¿½ Wow so those people that bomd and murder donï¿½t count in your world because it did not happen last week. I love how you keep reinforcing my point, I think I will just step aside and let you talk.

to anonymous | 1:15 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

You can have your family which nobody is preventing you from having. You just can't legally marry a person of the same gender nor can a polygamist be legal in California. I know a lesbian couple/family together for 23 years. What happened in California did not impact their family. How I define family is not impacted by California or any other laws. I have people, not legally related that call me aunt/mom and other terms of endearment and I consider them family despite legal definitions.

Where are my rights? | 1:17 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

The #1 lie in the whole campaign is that marriage is a right. Perhaps it will shock you to find this out, but if you have to get a license for it, then it is not a right.
Government has long asserted the authority to regulate marriage and procreation. Hence laws against marrying siblings, cousins, multiple spouses, someone with a blood-born disease, an animal, and so forth. These laws existed long before 1789 (the US Constitution) and if marriage was an explicit RIGHT, would have thus been named in the Bill of Rights as a major break from current governance.
Government regulation has subsequently been legislated and upheld by the Supreme Court. Notable are the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act, the Poland Act, Reynolds v. United States, the Edmunds Act, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act. All of these regulated marriage with the penalty of explicitly TAKING AWAY enumerated constitutional rights for those who did not conform.
Benson lists some impressive recent history here. Bottom line, Prop 8 will stand. Take it to the US Supreme Court and the result will likely be 50/50 states rather than 30/50.

J Jensen | 1:17 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

excellent article. As a California citizen I am so tired of being told that I discriminate because I am wanting to protect and uphold something that has been in place since the beginning of time. Never mind my rights to retain a sacred definition. . .

RE: Failed Attempt | 1:19 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I appreciate you stepping aside. It is probably the thing to do because I know you can't show me the democratic vote that this damage you're aware of was in response to.

Now don't renege on your decision to step aside or you'll lose all credibility. I know you want to respond real bad but you've got to fight it. You'll undo all the excellent work you've done on this comment board today.

A tantrum | 1:20 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Some have said Lee was wrong to characterized the backlash from Prop 8 as whinning. I'll go one step further:

It is a childish temper tantrum.

They sound like an upset, immature child: "you hate me, you are so mean, then the screaming (protests), and throwing things(vandalsim)"

"you're just trying to hurt me You don't care about me " "etc. etc."

Sounds familiar uh?

What rights? | 1:21 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Gays have no special rights. They have no minority status. It's a decision, not a minority characteristic such as race or sex. Gays have as many rights as smokers.

complicated, but not | 1:23 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Established. . .
body wired xx - brain wired xx
body wired xy - brain wired xy
body wired xx and xy - brain wired xx
body wired xy and xx - brain wired xy

Why not. . .
body wired xy - brain wired xx
body wired xx - brain wired xy
body wired xy - brain wired xy and xx
body wired xx - brain wired xx and xy

What is so difficult to believe about the spectrum of possibilities? In the merging of genetic material there are all sorts of combinations. Did you choose yours? Do we forget we are made up of more than our outward appearance? What did our spirits inherit? What did our minds inherit?

There are predators who make ugly choices in all sectors of society, however, in our saner moments we do not paint whole sectors with the same brush as those predators.

What is so scary?

Can we not give everyone the same opportunity to fail in creating a lasting committed relationship with the person they love that the majority of us already enjoy?

It doesn't matter if | 1:26 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

gayness is genetic or not.
Gays are P*E*O*P*L*E...

you know, human beings??

They vote, they pay their taxes, they serve in the military. Some are even religious. Gasp!

Shouldn't they have ALL the rights afforded to the rest of America?
Or should they only get most of the rights, and we'll tell them which ones they are?
Sweet deal for us! Too bad for them.

yeah.... | 1:30 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

This article makes a great point. Why does California get to whine and complain when the majority wins?

The Law of the Land | 1:30 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Of course said:

ï¿½They would, after all, have the right to abolish us as a religion and culture, because religion is a choice.ï¿½

No state has the power to nullify any religion. As it now stands, religion and the right to worship without interference by government is established in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The only scenario that would even apply to your reasoning is if a constitutional convention were called to revamp the United States Constitution. If society ever came to that, God help us all.

The #2 lie in the campaign | 1:35 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

The #1 lie in the opposition to Prop 8 campaign was that marriage is a right.

The #2 lie in the opposition to Prop 8 campaign was that marriage is the government and the People recognizing the love between two people. If you believe this lie then your concept of marriage is based on Disneyesque fantasies. In the real world governments recognize marriages as a means of regulating procreation and improving the probablities of children being raised as assests rather than as liabilities to society.

Now go do the research on the role that sociology, psychology, biology, and chemistry have on the successful raising of children. Look especially for the impact that male and female pheromones have in the process. You will find that it takes both a male AND a female in order for probablilities of success to be maximized. The science supports Prop 8.

Not surprised at all | 1:36 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Holy cow, consider the source of all the complaining. California is the most gay state in the US. Hollywood, San Francisco, etc.... What in the world do you expect from a state that started the hippie movement and a lot of other "not so desirous" lifestyles. The thing that is so disgusting is the total hypocrisies that are being spread about by the gay activists. They expect tolerance but they practice intolerance. They demand the right to organize and promote their cause raising millions of dollars in the process but they deny that right to those that don't agree with their twisted viewpoints. They use the constitution until that same constitution prohibits them from marrying by legal democratic process and then they attempt to sensor and ignore the democratic process by making an end run to the courts. They cry out for peaceful discourse then they encourage and participate in acts of intimidation, threats and the destruction of private property. One thing that has come from all of this is an even deeper resolve to fight against the radical gay movement in America.

Thanks Lee! | 1:37 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Thanks Lee for the great article.

Definitions put to vote: Absurd! | 1:38 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Yup, doesn't make any sense. No matter how it is argued, the definition can't logically be argued. I can't even understand why we have to vote on it. Definitions are not supposed to be put to a vote. But if we are going to vote, let's do one national vote and be done with it. The majority has a valid definition of marriage. The minority hasn't even come up with a definition of marriage, because they don't know what marriage is.

Even if the definition of marriage were put to a global vote the majority would define the union as being between a man and a woman. It is a kindergarten question at best. We all know the answer. What is there to debate here? Should we put the whole dictionary up for vote and diminish from any understanding of anything?

This isn't about rights. If you want to be married according to its definition, that's great--find someone of the opposite sex and get married. If not, then don't. But don't complain when you deprive yourself of marriage as defined by the society you are a part. Marriage shouldn't be put to vote, but it was, now uphold your democracy.

Ex Cali Girl | 1:43 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

We voted against gay marriage once and the courts overturned it. Again, we voted in November and the majority spoke again, it is between a man and a woman. The gays being able to be married is ridiculous. They can't procreate without a donor, they are forcing everyone to accept their "lifestyle" choice as a constitutional right and furthermore they can't just figure out....they lost and it's time to go away to another state and live their dream. There relationships are often times short lived and I know so are heterosexual marriages, but gays who don't have sex often burn out in a year like a bad date. I know, I lived near West Hollywood and oh the drama of the neighbors! Let it go gay population and move on. Whatever happen to your tolerance and acceptance speeches?

re: To the weak and the weary | 1:45 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

You are asking us to keep imposing a religious-based definition of "sinning/immoral behavior" as civil law. Fortunately, we have moved beyond religious-based definitions in other aspects of our civil code: we don't accept fathers having sexual relations with their daughters to preserve their seed, we don't accept people owning people, we don't accept one segment of society being inherently "chosen" above another (though on a global scale we tend to slip on that one).

It's time to move beyond religious-based definitions on this issue, at least as justification for why it's okay to continue excluding some from legal recognition of their committed relationship.

"Consenting adult" eliminates all the nonsense about marrying children, various animal friends, rocks, pine trees, and blow-up toys. Recognizing that all marriages are between two people also allows for legislating how many marriages a person can enter into at one time. Personally, I don't care about multiple marriages for someone if they choose to complicate their lives in that way. I do think we could require full disclosure to other spouses though.

You already have the same rights | 1:47 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I find it fascinating that the gays continue to attempt to make this about "their rights" while ignoring how imposing their false rights on us removes our rights in the process.

The reality is, as a poster already mentioned, that gays already share the same individual rights as you and I. What they are demanding is that we grant them a right that will require their lifestyle choice be taught in the public schools, make refusal to grant a temple recommend, or to marry in the temple "hate speech," and require that gays be given equal consideration in being granted adoption rights equal to (and at some point in the future over) a heterosexual couple. And they want to raise children with values that we mainstream, heterosexual Americans consider an abomination, and as such, eventually their "choices" will eventually completely erode the rights of heterosexuals and real families from real parents. For those of you heterosexuals who are sympathetic to the "gay rights" cause, is this really what you want for yours' and your children's futures? Not me. I will continue to push back the tide of words the gay and lesbian community use to make their indefensible point.

Chance Williams | 1:50 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I find it interesting when people try to equate this with minority rights. Blacks in California, the majority of whom voted FOR PROP 8, clearly don't see this as a "rights" issue.

It's a moral issue. Not equality. Morality.

Marriage is not a right. | 1:51 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Marriage is not a right. So stop pretending that it is.

It's not just California whining | 1:53 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Many have asked why does California get to whine when they lose? It's not California, folks, it's the LEFT WING:

- They whined when Bush won in 2000, calling it fraud. Al Gore wanted Democratic campaign workers in 4 Florida counties to "divine" who voters may have wanted in a recount. He couldn't care less about the other counties.

- They whined when Bush won by 3 million votes in 2004. Obama's "landslide" was only 5 million, BTW.

- They whined when Dino Rossi won the election for governor in the heavily Blue Washington State in 2004. Then they recounted and recounted (not to mention found boxes of votes every time they fell short) until they finally won.

- They whined and are doing it again in Minnesota where not-so-funny-man Al Franken lost the vote, and again, we have "diviners" guessing on ballots on the recount for Senator.

Liberals whine, cheat and sue whenever they don't get their way.

They claim "every vote counts" until the votes don't stack up in their favor!

Governments don't recognize love | 1:53 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Marriage is not about governments or societies recognizing the love between two people, so stop pretending that it is.

IT's ALL ABOUT KIDS!!!! | 1:56 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Why did the LDS church act so strongly in support of prop 8? It's all about the children!!!!! Families are the backbone of society and do we really want two gay men raising a little innocent boy who has NO SAY in the adoption? Children learn by example. What sort of example will they garner in a gay household? Will they be able to develop normal, healthy relationships with other boys or will they be more likely to follow the example in their home? Will they develop normal healthy relationships with young women or will they be more likely to shun women and turn to men for intimacy? If you were killed in a car accident would you honestly want your young boys to be placed in the care of two gay men and if not why? The home is not just for love but also for nurturing and teaching and that is probably why God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth ....NOT Adam and Steve!!! I think our creator knows more than we do about the road to happiness. Let's trust him!

re: a tantrum | 1:58 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Just remember "the second kid to whack a sibling" gets caught. Anyone on here remember that at least some of the vandalism was by pro-prop8 folks hoping to give a black eye to reputation of their opponents? That's the word on the water-soluble pink graffiti on the walls of the LA Temple grounds.

My mum had the wisdom to put everyone on the naughty step.

Question.... | 1:59 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I'm just curious..... for any gay memebers of the Mormon faith; if gay marriage was allowed, would any of you be fighting to have your marriage ceremony performed in a Mormon Temple?

Anonymous | 2:00 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

The majority of gay people are liberals. Liberals are the people who say, "I don't need a piece of paper to define my relationship. Marriage certificates are for conservatives and religious zealots. I can live with whomever I want and can have a better relationship than a lot of married couples."

So, the question remains... why do they even CARE about a stupid piece of paper? Because "it's the principle of the thing"? Again, since when did liberals care about principles?

Not the same | 2:03 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Comparing same gender rights to the civil rights of the 60's is just wrong. They are nothing close to the same thing. The civil rights of the 60's was a just cause that was needed. I just don't see this as a civil right issue.

See the Light! | 2:03 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

All i have to say is one thing...
"Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." -Isaiah 5:20
Biblically based argument definitely being fulfilled in our day. We must stand with the UNCHANGEABLE Creator of us all by establishing once and for all that truth is truth and doesn't change with time, persecution, or in different cultures. Marriage is between a man and a woman, always has been and always will be!

Outside the box | 2:04 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Maybe it's time to abolish civil recognition of marriage altogether. Such recognition and special perks for a select class (married versus not married) seems elitist at the least. Let churches solemnize, celebrate, sanctify, or whatever unions of those seeking religious blessing. Let there be no legal precedent of granting special privileges. Get government get out of this business entirely.

civil rights? | 2:07 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

In spite of the adage, 'if you repeat something often enough, it becomes true' don't be fooled by the drivel. Anti-traditional marriage activists flood the airwaves and boards such as this with non-sensical garbage. It is pathetic to compare legislation such as prop 8 to the civil rights struggle and should be offensive to those who have legitimately had their civil rights suppressed due to skin color. Little of what you are hearing from the 'No' side of the Prop 8 battle is true.

1. No one's civil rights have been taken away.

2. Gays frequently get married. They even have children. When you marry someone of the opposite sex it is called marriage. It always has been.

3. The Prop 8 legislation says nothing about an individual's ability to be part of a loving relationship.

4. The Prop 8 battle is understood by many of us to be an shrouded attack on religious liberties and individuals' rights to believe and teach that something such as homosexual behavior is wrong. Just witness the recent litigation against doctors, photographers, dating services, facilities, etc. by outspoken gay activists for refusing to provide services to gay couples.

Even Elton John gets it.

Citations? | 2:09 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Poster said:

ï¿½get a grip. being gay IS in fact a result of genes. Perhaps if you put down the book of mormon and picked up a scientific journal, you would know that.ï¿½..

Can you cite any article from those journals that conclusively proves that homosexuality is caused by genes? On the other hand, evidence may very well point to homosexuality being a genetic defect, which is completely different than saying a gene causes people to become gay. .

Since homosexuality occurs in the minority of the population that suggests that it might be some type of biological or genetic disorder that causes the body to re-map its sexual identity. Of course, if that were true the evidence would no doubt be suppressed since genetic defects also hold the promise for cures or treatments and this would alter the idea that being gay is something that cannot be changed and would leave homosexuals without excuse for their behavior

Welcome to Democracy | 2:14 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

From Freedom to Marry: "There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote. If this were being done to almost any other minority, people would see how un-American this is."

If that's true, then why hold elections at all? Why not just make decisions of governance by who can shout the loudest, who holds the most firepower, or who's the most cruel about literally enforcing their will? We left all that behind in the Middle Ages, right?

There are few things MORE democratic--or "American," if you like--than agreeing with the popular vote, even IF you didn't like the result. I didn't vote for Obama--but somebody forgot to tell me it was my RIGHT to march on the White House with a mob of like-minded voters, chanting sound-bite slogans and harassing opponents while demanding Mitt Romney be immediately installed as President--electoral will and constitutional procedure/precedent be damned!

That's not the way it's done in a democracy, gay-marriage advocates. To get your way, people, you're going to have to turn back the clock and take on the very Constitution of the United States itself.

re@ugh@12:23 | 2:20 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

If everyone who is not Mormon chooses to leave the state of Utah I hardly doubt that the rest of the Mormon's would turn on each other as you stated. Do you evn know the history of Utah? It was settled by Mormons who were seeking a place away from the rest of the world! get a clue before you post

My ex-wife... | 2:20 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

committed adultery, left me, left her family, and turned her back on God.

Now, it has been 15 years, and she still blames everyone else for her decision. It is absolutely ridiculous, nevertheless, she will NOT admit to her mistake. It is always someone else who is to blame.

Everyone else was over it years and years ago. Yet, she is going to go to her grave without ever accepting that she may have been wrong.

That is just how some people are. Apparently, the sore loser homosexual crowd fits in to this category. They just will not accept the fact; that the society they live in will NOT condone such deviant behavior.

The End.

re: of course | 2:22 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

you need to do your research better. I just the other day read an article from the state of Utah (not the LDS church) that states that the Mormon church is still in the majority in Utah. A slim majority - not don the less - still a majority.

Red | 2:23 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Slavery? 9:16 am: "The majority in the United States could not legalize slavery because it directly defies the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

"The majority in the United States" DID legalize slavery, and it remained legal for four score and seven years.

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

re: Anonymous @ 12:53 | 2:26 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

You talk about the "Militant Mormons" please site this fact. It is not militant to VOTE the way you choose. There has been militant behavior - but it has been by the gay agenda not the Mormons

You mentioned our "Hateful agenda" please site this also -- I have not read any agenda full of hate for gays - must have missed that one. I did however read the "gay agenda" and there was ALOT of hate in it!

lave | 2:26 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Kevin: As hard as I try I can't imagine how you can have a family as you say by being gay. Nature and natural selection don't work that way. Religion doesn't even play a part in this. You tell me how you can have a family without both genders and I will support your desire to be married. On the other hand I am more than willing to support your lifestyle by any other name. You choose your companion and as such are entitled to the same protection that a Man and Woman ( Married) receive. You need to fight the correct battle because you will never win by defination. Just because the court says you have the right to be married doesn't mean that you will be accepted. In fact if history repeats it's self, you will create more hate and hate crimes. Look at the race issue. Don't expect things to change over night.

What I don't get.. | 2:31 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

The vote was done. Protesting at churches, burning signs on peoples' lawns, beating people, etc, this does nothing at all to overturn a vote (unless, for example, you're trying fear tactics.. win by making them afraid to vote). Fighting it in the courts, in elections, etc, that can make a difference. Terrorizing people doesn't help the cause of gay marriage, it only makes people more afraid of what would happen if it passed.

Peaceful, legal disagreement is fine. The name-calling, harassment, assaults and scare tactics used by some people on each side, is not.

Angel | 2:31 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I think the gay/lesbian community have made thier point. We get it, you are mad. Now get over it. As the mayor of San Fransisco said on the Dr Phil show "quit playing the victim"

re: Reality Check | 2:32 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I am sorry about your brother. I am divorced and if I fall in love with a married man should I seek my "rights' to marry him?
What about single people who will never have the opportunity in this life to marry because there are just not enough good and righteous men to go around they I am sure have at one time loved someone - where are their rights?
In reading other comments I have come to realize that these rights are not always available to heretosexuals either. If I am wrong -then why dosen't your brother go about righting the wrong through the law instead of changing "marraige" for everyone else - AND PLEASE don't tell me that it won't change anything - if you believe that - then it is you who are truly blind.

To anon@1:58 | 2:35 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"at least some of the vandalism was by pro-prop8 folks hoping to give a black eye to reputation of their opponents"

Oh, really? According to which news source? Or on whose planet? You come out with a zinger like that, pal, better be prepared to back it up with FACTS and CREDIBLE SOURCES.

Otherwise, it's just more spin and propaganda by those who've already demonstrated that they're willing to stop at NOTHING to get their way, the electorate and Democratic process shoved aside. Sounds like yet more of the same crapola to me.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.