Bobby Jindal

represent Louisiana!

I think it's awesome that Ellen kept it civil even though she knew they were going to have completely different standpoints. Previous daytime talkshow hosts (Rosie and Tom Selleck anyone?) didn't have the same restraint.

How is he as a governor Syako? I'm curious. Could you see him as #2? Would that be a good ticket? Hmm... McCain/Jindal '08...

Well he's only been in office for a few months now... I like his ideas though (cleaning up the corruption and stop coddling with the old politicians that do shady deals).

He's still really young though. But I think he'd bring that "diverse" "young" "cute kids" to the ticket...

I don't really know citizen, I'd like him to fix our state first!

He sort of has to pick Crist. Although a McCain/Degeneres ticket would be interesting.

McCain's position is sooo weird. Who cares what couples want to call each other, the want to be married, be married, who cares, I see a bigger problem with civil unions and fraud; where people who aren't couples start having "civil unions" for benefits; b/c this would be harder to police since its not marriage - and if we are going to require the same proof as a marriage to curb fraud - then isn't it sort of silly and childish to not call it marriage just so that we feel better?

His positions are so strange to me.

zz - Those same people could get "married" and still fraud the benefits corp. McCain's position has to do with his belief in the sanctity of marriage between one man, and one woman.

"I see a bigger problem with civil unions and fraud; where people who aren't couples start having "civil unions" for benefits; b/c this would be harder to police since its not marriage"

I never thought of this Z!

It's so obvious McCain is trying to ponder to people against/opposed to gay marriage with his opinion, but fails to please anyone. Take a stand man!

That's why gay people want to get married. To commit fraud. And please don't insult homosexuals by saying their love and appeal to a legal union isn't as sanctified. Love is love. Straight people don't do it with any more purity than gay people.

UD: I know that, but with marriage there are specific things that have to be proven, and if we are going to require these same things to be proven in Unions - then why not call it a marriage - you either ban it all or not, don't sugar coat and call it something else so you don't offend people - I thought he was a maverick who didn't care what people thought of him as long as did what he believed was right. I am not picking on him here, it just annoys me when people can't fully admit what their policy means.

As for his belief in the sanctity of marriage - well I am not interested in it, its his personal, moral, religious belief, it has no place in my government or my constitution.

If we are going to inject the law with these beliefs then why can't a group decide tomorrow that a "man" is white according their own moral beliefs and not persecute men of other color, but deny them benefits - or better yet give them "equal legal benefits" under another name (which sounds too much like separate-but-equal logic to me)

"That's why gay people want to get married. To commit fraud."

I hope that's not what you think I meant - I meant that if it is not marriage b/c McCain refuses to call it that then it is marriage benefits w/o the marriage proof therefore making it easy for non-gay people to gain marriage benefits by way of fraud b/c the marriage requirements aren't there - and if we put these requirements there then it should be called marriage we should stop lying to ourselves.

So I'm saying McCain can't make this position work w/o either allowing easy fraud or calling it marriage and not trying to fool everyone on what it is - he must choose one.

I don't see how McCain's position is so strange. I believe that marriage shouldn't exist at all as a state institution and civil unions should be available to everyone.

Anyway, I think it will be Jindal, but I'm hoping for Romney. Romney is very strong economically, he could curb people's worries about McCain's age (because people could see Romney as stepping up and becoming president, IMO), and he's charismatic.

Also, just in my personal opinion, Romney is the closest person to an "old school" Republican who is on the national scene today.

Racc I think you misunderstood Z's comment.

Heck no Lil, Fred is an old school Conservative too! I Fred.

Are you talking to me yet lil? Or do I have to wait to I go Platinum?

I guess I will make an exception for you, cine!

And I forget about Fred sometimes. I don't know why...

I guess I think Romney is the most conservative of the three choices mentioned in the article, which I know is totally not what I said, but I think it's more along the lines of what I was thinking.

"I don't see how McCain's position is so strange. I believe that marriage shouldn't exist at all as a state institution and civil unions should be available to everyone."

Agreed! Now convince Kentucky.

Marriage has no place in law - it is religious/spiritual. The benefits given to people should be given to anyone living in the same situation regardless of sexual relationships, take homosexuality out of it - if two roommates decide to buy a house and one works and one takes care of the house - their lives are the same as a married couple, both don't have sex even! Why deny benefits based on sexual relationships? This is just government encouragement to one lifestyle and discrimination against others and shouldn't be allowed. It's not like marriage is permanent, in fact people keep their friends longer then spouses!

Sorry Kim, I agree only w/ the second sentece, his position is strange - I stand by that.

I always laugh when people talk about the sanctity of marriage. With the oft quoted statistic that half of all marriages end in divorce, I'm not sure how sanctified it is anymore. Maybe we should also be backing gay divorce. Or would that threaten the sanctity of the traditional broken home?

I read somewhere (but I have no idea where now) that gay couples are likely to stay committed to each other longer than straight couples once they make a formal commitment (marriage, commitment ceremony, etc.). Anyway, I don't know where I read it, but I thought it was interesting.

the traditional broken home. 2M!

that was sposed to be a LOL. why did i get a green smiley?

lol, Kim, Gay people should protest our idea of Civil Unions for all b/c is the common marriage insults the sanctity of a civil union.

Lil, how can you forget about Fred? Unfortunately I don't think he will be Vice P. but I still hold on to a glimmer of hope.

Straight men and women can commit fraud too, and it happens all the time. Why would gays be more likely to? That's such an absurd argument.

And yeah, sanctity of marriage makes me laugh too, particularly when the man speaking about that has been divorced.

"the unique status of marriage between a man and a woman" - What's unique about it besides the fact that the penis goes in the vagina on the night of the honeymoon? That's the only thing that makes it different IMO. I thought marriage was about two people who love each other. Not two people who can have vaginal sex together. I don't understand how people can ignore the idea of love, or cannot accept the idea that love is universal and you can feel love for someone no matter what sexual organs they possess.

Wow. I felt like I just stepped back in time to sex ed class, rivrchild.

yeah that was a bit graphic for the breakfast still sitting in my stomach.

lilkim - i heart romney! but i doubt he will be the pick, even though i would like it.

monday - i thought tom selleck and rosie when i saw this headline too, thank god ellen has more class than rosie... thats refreshing.

"Marriage has no place in law - it is religious/spiritual. The benefits given to people should be given to anyone living in the same situation regardless of sexual relationships, take homosexuality out of it - if two roommates decide to buy a house and one works and one takes care of the house - their lives are the same as a married couple, both don't have sex even! Why deny benefits based on sexual relationships? This is just government encouragement to one lifestyle and discrimination against others and shouldn't be allowed. It's not like marriage is permanent, in fact people keep their friends longer then spouses!"

I agree that the term marriage is religious/spiritual. So if you to allow people of the same sex to "marry", then the church has to recognize that. I don't know of any denominations that have proven that 1)Homosexuality is not a sin, and 2) Marriage is between ANY couples that love each other, not just a man and woman.

If two roomates live together and only one works, then only the person who works is buying the house.

Marriage may not be permanent, but it should be. Too many kids (and yes 20-25 yr olds are still just kids) rush into a marriage because they think they are in love, and then when they've been married a couple years, realize that either they don't really know the guy/girl, they think that marriage is too much work, or they think they had it better when they were single and could date anyone.

If Homosexuals want a civil union that allows them the same benefits as a married man and woman, then let the government regulate it. Don't call it a marriage, because it isn't.

I read somewhere (but I have no idea where now) that gay couples are likely to stay committed to each other longer than straight couples once they make a formal commitment (marriage, commitment ceremony, etc.). Anyway, I don't know where I read it, but I thought it was interesting.

Actually, the statistics point the other way. Of the couples that have had civil unions, almost 45% have now divorced. Not any better than married couples.

"McCain's position has to do with his belief in the sanctity of marriage between one man, and one woman."

I think that if they were really concerned about the sanctity of marriage they would go after the 55 hour marriage people or people who marry 6 times. Those are the biggest insults and examples of the cheapening of the institution, IMO.

But how do you go after them without "infringeing on their rights"? I ddon't like either, and think that the people who marry someone who plans to divorce after 55 hours should lose their ability marry.

"believe that marriage shouldn't exist at all as a state institution and civil unions should be available to everyone"

I agree!

"I don't know of any denominations that have proven that 1)Homosexuality is not a sin, and 2) Marriage is between ANY couples that love each other, not just a man and woman"

How exactly would you prove that? Are people checking "hell" on a regular basis to make sure all those homos are arriving there safely?

And you know what? Marraige isn't just a church thing. It's a law thing, a contract thing. You need a license, and it ain't from the church!

If you need to ban other people from getting married just to feel sanctity in your own marriage, then I feel sorry for you.

It's amazing that McCain is essentially telling Ellen TO HER FACE that she's a second-class citizen.

pop - well I think what a lot of people here are saying is that the govt should not have a hand in marriage at all, and the only govt approved thing should be a civil union.

Also I don't think personal attacks are necessary...

I completely agree with Ellen. I can't help but wonder how many people today would recoil in disgust from the idea that an interracial couple should be allowed a civil union so they can get benefits from the government, but it's not really a marriage since it's so unnatural. Of course, not that long ago a lot of people would have been just fine with that idea...

People use the word marriage for lots of things. Here's an article titled The Perfect Marriage of Gears and Motors. People say things like "well, I'm not married to the idea..." etc... There is nothing inherent in the word marriage that implies the sex or the number of people involved. There have been polygamous and polyamorous marriages for all of time in many different societies.

If people want to commit to and love each other, that is nothing but healthy for society. And the "homosexuality is a sin" thing is irrelevant. We don't outlaw everything that is sinful nor do we allow the government to regulate sin.

Um, wait let me clarify that *I* don't think homosexuality is a sin. I'm just saying that it shouldn't matter to people whether or not they believe it's sinful - that should be outside of the government's purview.

with that, let's go back to Jindal...

look at his darling family... take that Obama... haha just kidding!

lol S, if he's the VP it will be a clear what the intentions and reasons are for picking him, i would probably back fire. But they are a nice looking family, it's like the Republican Obama the way he is dresses and stands, his 2 kids are boys not girls, he even has the multiple religion thing down.

syako, I actually meant that last part as a general statement but I can easily see how it would look like it was directed only to UnDave. My bad.

That said though, it's not really a personal attack on anyone's character. I really do feel sorry for people who feel that their marriage is somehow devalued by homosexuals getting married. If someone truly feels that way, then they'd be scared and upset about the recent court decisions, and feel like their marriage to their wife or husband meant less. That is certainly something worth feeling sorry for someone about.

oh my bad, I interpreted as bashing Dave, and I like Dave.