Comment history

Bill would require new vaccine for Kansas girls

This is unneccessary government involvement in my kids lives that is padding the pockets of the pharmceutical companies. I thought our democratic leaders were better than playing into the hands of the drug company lobbyists.

February 7, 2007 at 7:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill would require HPV shot for girls

This is ridiculous. Get these bozo's out of office. I thought we were trying to reduce government interference, not increase it.

February 1, 2007 at 1:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Nancy Boyda goes to Washington

I hope Nancy can reverse the excessive federal spending ushered in by a party that had too much of a monopoly on power.

November 22, 2006 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback: N.J. marriage ruling deepens "constitutional crisis"

I stand corrected on my erroneous comment that procreation is the entire reason for marriage. It is the primary reason, but not the only reason.

Nevertheless, the inability to procreate is an impediment to marriage. There are differing opinions about whether a geriatric marriage is valid. The answer I have heard given contrary to those that argue such marriages are invalid is that there have been instances in history where women thought to be past child bearing years in fact had children.

I know a lot are mad at me for having the opinions that I do. I am no saint and know that some of my personal actions over time have gone against my own beliefs (which is really MUCH worse than someone's else's actions which--regardless of my opinions--are at least consistent with their own beliefs). I know I am not an expert in history, though I do not know if I am any worse at it than others commenting. I am sure some things I believe can be refuted in various ways, so perhaps I should not be allowed to say them. And I will be the first to admit that I have never gotten over my parents not being together--so perhaps that "chip on my shoulder" adds to things. But it is something I feel strongly about and I want to express my opinion: marriage, which I consider a sacrament, should be publicly restricted to one man and one woman. It is what it is.

In spite of my deficiencies and failings, then, I am against domestic abuse; against pre-marital sex; against divorce; against adultery; against pornography; against artificial birth control; against smoking; against drug use; against pollution; against dating at an early age; against polygamy; against same sex marriage. Where I have failed, I will do better, but the fact I fail, does not change what I believe.

I would like to say I am against technology, but here I am on the internet...

October 26, 2006 at 5:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback: N.J. marriage ruling deepens "constitutional crisis"

Racial discrimination and violence are matters that should not be tolerated. They are upsetting and demand justice. But should I be upset that I cannot procreate a child with another man? No judge or anyone else can change this (whether you call it unjust or not). And that is the entire reason for the institution of marriage.

This is not an American religious right thing. The religious right in America, unfortunately, recognizes divorce.Don't cloud the issue with bringing up outrageous instances where what should be marriages have failed. My own parents do not recognize the indisolvibility (sp?) of their marriage, but that does not make them right.

Some things change over time; hopefully for the better. Who would have thought the rights of the disabled would be so much improved in the past two decades. But unfortunately many things are changing for the worse because of men(think of the abuse of the natural environment, the unnatural violence everywhere, the prevalence of abortions, the chemicals we are forced to breathe and ingest, our loss of privacy....). Let's not let the natural institution of marriage be changed by men.

October 26, 2006 at 4:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback: N.J. marriage ruling deepens "constitutional crisis"

Even though this can be so upseting to some of us, I think Brownback is right on. Some things change and some things don't. Marriage is one that doesn't. You cannot really compare it at all to the issue of civil rights for different races. How many civil rights activists would turn over in their graves if they heard of such a comparison. It seems ludicrous to even have to think of amending the constitution or even passing a statute to define marriage as it has existed in cultures for time immemorial, accross all ethnic and racial lines. But for any judge to do so just goes to show what crazy times we live in and a constitutional amendment might be the unfortunate necesscity to regain sanity.

October 26, 2006 at 2:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )