a correction (or two) needs to be made

OBama won 28 states and the district of columbia, with a total popular vote of 66.8 million

McCain won the other 22 states with a total popular vote of 58.3 million



it would be odd if 22 states had a larger total area of square miles than 28 plus the district of columbia,, but I dont feel like looking all that up right now,,,

well, there you have it

we have many more dangers awaiting them outside a locked door than we do inside


and a culture where both parents often have to work longer hours than children are at school....

what you call 'locking someone in' could be considered protective in many cases as well


kids need food, shelter, water, protection

if they are in a space big enough and clean enough to have those things, a locked door makes little difference,,,except maybe to keep them from getting to places that may be LESS SAFE,,,


Im thinking you may not have any children of your own,,,,


parents here , who have to work, do the same thing daily in their homes, locking the doors and telling children NEVER to open them,,,,


its as protective as anything else someone might do to keep a child from harm, whether the child wishes to go out or not,,,

scary,, to me, that something originated to prevent people from being kept from jobs or education should be so broadly applied to every situation and every circumstance,,,,


I dont see defining marriage as one male and female as discriminatory because EVERY class has males and females in it,,,

but, I guess it could be argued that because the homosexual 'class' is not attracted the same way as heterosexuals (those who havent had kids with a heterosexual,, at least), it indirectly discriminates


it also discriminates on the basis of familial status though, to say one man and one woman and that they cannot be related


it also discriminates the protected class 'genetic information' (which is set up to prevent people with genetic likelihood toward disease from receiving insurance), if we apply it as the foundation for not allowing siblings to marry,,,


the list could spread on and on, because we have tried to make sure all citizens are treated equally when it comes to being able to WORK and become educated or get medical care,,,,and defined them as 'protected'

a term now being used to 'protect' for other situations and circumstances as well,,,


but it may come, to appease everyone of every 'class', that we stop defining marriage/encouraging marriage at all on a government level and just 'live and let live'


the kids are already exposed by media to the anything goes culture,, why not take it all the way,,,,

'used against you',,,,lol


whatever dude,,,

being single is not a 'doomed' state at all,, all the fewer opportunity to be disappointed or stressed by someone elses issues,,,

time will tell

but I do think its most likely we will move toward an anything goes society,

where marriage is nothing but a contract,,,,,

interesting perspectives,,,,

the only problem I see is that once you say a government entity, whether federal or state, should not have the legal right to define marriage one way or the other,,,

it makes it hard to justify ANY requirements whatsoever


in this paragraph alone

"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
"


you could easily replace 'same sex' marriage with, incestuous, or minor , or any other description of any potential relationship which people may raise children together in,,,,

truly? what other presidents graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, I will likewise give them credit where credit is due,,,,,



and of course, the more people started to hear about him, the more people (potentially) wanted to hear more about his life,,,,thats kind of the law of averages,,,,


my point, if we may get back to it though, was he published the book before he ever had a political career because he received a CONTRACT to do so,,,,and an autobiography usually doesnt just contain the triumphs and great decisions a person makes, because that would scream of inauthenticity to anyone who realizes human beings make mistakes,

what is marriage but government aknowledegment?

if its a matter only of church acknowledgement the churches can perform those when and how they wish,,,,


right now, government aknowledges a marriage as an ADULT HUSBAND and a WIFE,, not related


husband being male, wife being female
, adult being whatever age of majority exists from state to state

not related, probably to avoid family foundations in which children will have uncle dads and aunt moms,,,etc,,,,,

I Agree, let it be a state issue left to voters,,,,if it has to be an issue at all,,,

well, I personally buy autobiographies when I want to know about someones life

being the book was published before he started any political career,along with noteriety for his MAGNA CUM LAUDE status from HARVARD

Im guessing most of the initial sales were for this reason as well

apparently enough did care,, its spent 270 weeks on new york bestsellers list , selling 4.6 million copies



and plenty disagreed, apparently , that he was disastrous, he won 53 percent of the popular vote in the 2008 election


in an autobiography, you dont just tell about all the great things you have done, unless you are an egotist,,, which may be the personality some people prefer in the white house,,,

I didnt realizing including life experiences in a BIOGRAPHY Was the same as 'going out and bragging'

thanx for enlightening me,, IM sure you read the book and its context,,,,,,,,

NOT

I dont think he was bragging, anymore than Bush brags about being a former alcoholic,,,,


and I actually dont know that Bush was or wasnt, because he hasnt openly admitted his vices the way OBama has

but I tend to believe he is the 'type' to have done cocaine and I tend to believe accounts from former classmates and enlistees that he did,,,,

and Im not sure if a 'former' alcoholic is better or worse tnan a 'former' cokehead,,, but whatever keeps the sensationalism going,,,,,,,,

I agree

and there are single parents who are doing wonderful jobs everywhere

but , all things being equal, which they never are,, the IDEAL we need to encourage is for PARENTS (those who will create a life together) to commit first to each other,,,,

'yep, as long as Im not contributing to the bridge, let them decide for themself,,,,

haaaaaa

,. such a troublemaker


I dont want to come back at all, let me be 'at peace'..lol

are you a teacher?

If he refused to see evidence, the case should be easily appealed and he should face discipline


if he saw evidence that was not meeting the requirement for a 'preponderance' in such a case, than it was within his authority'


with a confession, however, depending upon the charge (harassment vs assault,,,etc,,,) it must be reviewed as to what was specifically confessed to and if it was done under duress or with understanding,,,,