I watched a little of her show over the weekend.  She had a table discussion on education.  I think her point about children belonging to the community is based on the whole "It takes a village" concept.  She wants more people to care about the conditions of the schools in their neighborhood and the quality of the education the kids are receiving.   On her show, she talked about seeing poor kids on the street corners in her neighborhood playing instruments and said that those kids can play instruments, but I bet they don't test well.   She wondered about how to test them.  She also wanted to make clear, "I'm not saying poor kids can't learn."

To me, she seems like a person who doesn't have the first clue about the people she's trying to "help."

I read Man's Search for Meaning and never forgot it.  If God can find His way through Nazi concentration camps, He can find His way in North Korea.

"For you see, in the end, it was between you and God.  It was never between you and them anyway."---Mother Theresa

"O Lord, forgive these miserable people."---murdered Christian in North Korea

I hope the Lord took him right to Heaven.  God is present for us even in the most desperate situations.

God gives us the opportunity to show kindness to those who don't show it to us.  It may not happen often, but the chances do arise.

This whole conversation made my day.  Thank you for making me laugh. Nearly everyone on my Facebook news feed has changed their picture to the pink equal sign.  

I agree that marriage is an essential building block of a society.  I fail to understand why homosexuals having their relationships recognized as such is detrimental to society and/or children.  The gay couples I know, who have gone to great lengths to have children, view their children as the center of their lives.  They recognize their importance.  I don't understand your view that recognizing homosexual marriage eliminates children from the equation.  Even for heterosexuals having children is a choice.   Is it the use of the word "marriage" that is the problem?  If so, call it a "civil union" and make it legal!

"If we change the definition of marriage to one that is only about two adults who love each other--well, children have been removed from the mix entirely.  With marriage, we assure that as often as possible, the two people who produce the child will raise it. "

Merina, you talk about heterosexual marriage in its ideal form.  The truth is that not all marriages last forever, and not all children are born to married couples.  It seems pretty obvious that heterosexuals are not experts on the subject.   Also, not all married heterosexual couples can have children.  They then must go through the same channels as a homosexual couple would.  Gay or straight no couple is perfect, but if they love and are committed to one another and love their children, why would anyone want to interfere?

What if the "honest research" shows that children benefit more from having a mother and a father?  Are we going to remove children from their homes, if they're being raised by gay parents?  I don't think that would go over very well.  Gay people shouldn't be judged any differently from straight people on their ability to parent.  Can they provide a loving, safe, stable environment?  Can they provide for their children financially?  Are they committed to one another?  If the crux of this whole argument is merely over the word "marriage", then Republicans should drop it, and support civil unions.

I went over to Public Discourse and read the entire piece.  I think that if the arrangement he and his ex-wife have work for them, then more power to them.  Saying that denying a child both a father and a mother is evil, or supposing that a son would never walk up to his dad and give him a kiss and a hug is Mainwaring's opinion.  People can take it or leave it.  I choose to leave it.

The second part of the article about how redefining marriage is just opening the door to more government involvement in our lives I found more interesting.  Is this not an argument for why conservatives should support civil unions?

I thought Rand Paul was excellent.  Maybe the Senate isn't a total black hole.

I wasn't bothered by her appearance, except that she should've acknowledged the soldiers standing behind her.  I found it odd that she didn't.  I agree it would have been better for her to actually be on stage.  That being said, we Republicans can't freak out about every little thing.  At the end of the day, are we surprised Hollywood decided to incorporate the Obamas?  I was stunned Seth MacFarlane didn't make any references to Obama's win in the opening number. 

Me too!  Should've known better.

25, I'm kicking myself for a couple of them.

I felt for Sen. Rubio last night.  He seemed really nervous.  I'm not at all surprised this is a "story."  Watching the news is pointless. 

What pressure?  The pressure that if you disagree with Obama you might be called racist?  If you disagree with gay marriage, you're a homophobe?  If you're pro-life, you hate women?  If you think we should cut entitlements, you hate the elderly and the poor?  And so on and so on...