i don't trust anything the famous singers/actors/athletes have to say about gay marriage, because if they say they don't agree with it, the media shuns them. they can't afford to have a personal opinion, if they wanna keep doing what they are doing...

I think its ridiculous that this is getting so much attention when Obama just into law H.R. 933 which includes section 755 which is the Monsanto Protection Act.

We have drones flying over us spying us.

Our employees are continuously making backroom closed door deals without letting us know about them.

The NDAA is still in effect.

DHS is buying up all the ammo.

DHS just purchased over 2000 light armored tanks.

The gulf coast is still in shambles because of BP, BUT gay marriage is getting all the attention. Merica, get your priorities straight.

I think its ridiculous that this is getting so much attention when Obama just into law H.R. 933 which includes section 755 which is the Monsanto Protection Act.

We have drones flying over us spying us.

Our employees are continuously making backroom closed door deals without letting us know about them.

The NDAA is still in effect.

DHS is buying up all the ammo.

DHS just purchased over 2000 light armored tanks.

The gulf coast is still in shambles because of BP, BUT gay marriage is getting all the attention. Merica, get your priorities straight.

Whining about how these topics aren't getting enough coverage in a thread they have nothing to do with isn't going to do anything.

http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-5-terrifying-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079

and all that happened when the Nation was busy whining about Same-Sex-Marriage!

Classic Wizard of Oz Syndrome!
"Don't pay no Mind to the Man Behind the Curtain"!
Obama gracefully signed the Law,knowing very well what was in it!


The "Monsanto Protection Act" is the name opponents of the Farmer Assurance Provision have given to this terrifying piece of policy, and it's a fitting moniker given its shocking content.

*
Monsanto
REUTERS
A maize seedling is seen in the corn greenhouse at the Monsanto Research facility in Chesterfield, Missouri October 9, 2009.

Sponsorship Link

President Barack Obama signed a spending bill, HR 933, into law on Tuesday that includes language that has food and consumer advocates and organic farmers up in arms over their contention that the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" is a giveaway to corporations that was passed under the cover of darkness.

There's a lot being said about it, but here are five terrifying facts about the Farmer Assurance Provision -- Section 735 of the spending bill -- to get you acquainted with the reasons behind the ongoing uproar:

1.) The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds -- which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.

But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear.

2.) The provision's language was apparently written in collusion with Monsanto. Lawmakers and companies working together to craft legislation is by no means a rare occurrence in this day and age. But the fact that Sen. Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, actually worked with Monsanto on a provision that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds, which can then go on to be planted, even if it is found to be harmful to consumers, is stunning. It's just another example of corporations bending Congress to their will, and it's one that could have dire risks for public health in America.

3.) Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the bill they were voting on. HR 933 was a spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills. But the Center for Food Safety maintains that many Democrats in Congress were not even aware that the provision was in the legislation:

“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

4.) The President did nothing to stop it, either. On Tuesday, Obama signed HR 933 while the rest of the nation was fixated on gay marriage, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning California's Proposition 8. But just because most of the nation and the media were paying attention to gay marriage doesn't mean that others were not doing their best to express their opposition to the "Monsanto Protection Act." In fact, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition opposing the provision. And Food Democracy Now protesters even took their fight straight to Obama, protesting in front of the White House against Section 735 of the bill. He signed it anyway.

5.) It sets a terrible precedent. Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.

“I think any time you tweak with the ability of the public to seek redress from the courts, you create a huge risk,” Seattle attorney Bill Marler -- who has represented victims of foodborne illness in successful lawsuits against corporations -- told the New York Daily News.

I'm not whining, just pointing out that we have far more important things to worry about than two men marrying. Gays wanting to get married benefits gays, what I posted would a great benefit to us all to do something about or grave decision to focus on distractions which is what this is.

I'm not whining, just pointing out that we have far more important things to worry about than two men marrying. Gays wanting to get married benefits gays, what I posted would a great benefit to us all to do something about or grave decision to focus on distractions which is what this is.

I was just thinking back when singers have spoken out against what their fans think. The gay marriage thing is pretty recent, so we'll have to see if that actually happens. I don't have an example for you right now.

I mean, we see things happening like when Ellen Degeneres was named spokesperson for JC Penny and people got completely outraged over that. Imagine what could happen if celebrities started speaking out for gay marriage?

Do something about it, then, and stop worrying about gay marriage. Complaining about those things in this thread will do nothing except get the thread off topic.

If marriage was solely a religious practice, why are non-religious people allowed to marry?

pursuit of happiness is the declaration of independence, not the constitution,,,


but , I agree, that and a pandoras box of other activities could easily slide into the category of 'pursuit of happiness',,,,

loving someone, having consentual sex with someone is a HUMAN RIGHT

having the state validate, certify, encourage, promote, reward your choice of love or sex is not a HUMAN RIGHT<,,

Its not in the constitution its in the declaration of independence.

Marriage is NOT a right. It is a legal designation that must be met by certain criteria.

The license is issued by the states. Not the federal government.

The 10th amendment clearly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Marriage is a religious practice and government should not be in it. Government wants to be involved so they can tax certain things involve with marriage.

Now if something comes up for a vote by the people, then it is law and not even the courts has a right to over turn the will of the people. When the people vote, not politicians, which is the highest authority in the land. Are highest rules, like the Constitution and Bill of Rights can only be change by the people. Sure it has to pass congress first but only when 2/3, if I remember correctly, votes one way then that way becomes law.

Marriage is not a right in our country but a privilege. I don’t recall marriage being in the Constitution.

I don't think he is worrying about gay marriage at all, that's kinda the point of his statement. We're worrying about the wrong things, and I agree with that, this should be a non issue. If gays wanna marry they should be able to do so, there's bigger things to worry about than that happening.


its a false logic which ASSUMES that people are or are not worrying on one thing based upon their voicing an opinion about something else

we are capable of ' worrying' about many things at once

but conversations are best if they center around one topic at a time,,,

I don't think he is worrying about gay marriage at all, that's kinda the point of his statement. We're worrying about the wrong things, and I agree with that, this should be a non issue. If gays wanna marry they should be able to do so, there's bigger things to worry about than that happening.

its a false logic which ASSUMES that people are or are not worrying on one thing based upon their voicing an opinion about something else

we are capable of ' worrying' about many things at once

but conversations are best if they center around one topic at a time,,,

ellen's a nice person, i can't see why anyone would be outraged by her... elton john has been pro gay as long as i can remember, he never shunned...

and i guess you forgot about chic fillet, all they did was voice there opinion, and look what happened..

Tim Tebow, he'll never play in the NFL...
Kurt Cameron, he'll never act again...
Tracey Morgan, not sure about his acting ability to begin with...
Michelle Shocked... i'm sure San Fransisco won't ask her back...http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/folk-legend-incites-mass-walkout-anti-gay-speech-195312874.html
Louie Giglio, he cannot have an opinion, obama fired him for his opinions... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/10/louie-giglio-pulls-out-of-inaugural-over-anti-gay-comments/
A Floridian "teacher of the year" fired for not agreeing with gay marriage... again, he's not allowed an opinion...http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/florida-teacher-suspended-for-anti-gay-marriage-post-on-personal-facebook/

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/top-rick-perry-staffer-called-campaigns-anti-gay-ad-nuts.php

can you show me any famous people getting shunned for their pro gay stance?