Oh, and for those of you who think the Democrats are beautiful people who can do no wrong, DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Congrats, you've defeated another strawman, what are you 1437-and-0 at that? No one reading your site believes that about Democrats.

Very few liberals have a lot of enthusiasm for Clinton OR Obama, who both pride themselves on making an effort to be "centrists." It's Republicans who tend to fall into lockstep behind whatever Rush or Fox tell them to believe. Which is why a lot of Republicans are going to act like Mitt Romney is an awesome candidate in 2012 despite the fact that he pretty much drew up the blueprints for "Obamacare."

You like to claim you're an independent on this blog, yet you seem to disparage Democrats a great deal more than Republicans. I wonder which Democrats you have actually supported over the last, say 20 years, with either your money or your votes -- care to share?

"It's Republicans who tend to fall into lockstep behind whatever Rush or Fox tell them to believe."

Which is why we have had, what, four Republican front-runners so far without a single vote being cast? I'll argue that the candidates are being examined, and none have proven to be superior on all fronts.

Like every other coalition of partially aligned interests, it's not easy satisfying everyone. The religious right has very little in common with fiscal conservative, social libertarian, strong national defense, otherwise very limited government types like me.

If you are going to make sweeping assertions, please provide some backing, anecdotal or otherwise.

> It's Republicans who tend to fall into lockstep
> behind whatever Rush or Fox tell them to believe.

Is there any reason to think so except that you've lived an unremarkable life without courage, investment or attachment great enough to create something that means a lot to a bunch of people (wealth, perhaps, or maybe a successful business) on your own, and so you now enjoy paying monthly fees to watch Fox news for the juiceless thrill of pretending that its "Lies!" are nuanced and clever such that only you (through some experience unlisted on your vitae) have the sensitivity, compassion and integrity to understand how the little minds who watch that channel, y'know, for real, are being deceived?

'Cause I think that's a more likely explanation.

You're just not that bright. No one so enraged by Fox (or Coulter or Limbaugh etc) ever is.

That was fun.

Mornin', everybody! Would one of you unpack that mother and check the math? I gotta shower and go to work. Thankee

Nothing wrong with that.

How come lefties never think of how to make things better unless it involves taking command of other people's resources, or of their sources of information?

What is that?

all Republicans are basically monominded idiots.

This is my impression, after years of reading your site, of how you feel about Democrats. If that is not how you feel about Democrats, you are doing an insufficient job as a writer in getting your views across. You come off condescending and smug toward people with different views from yours.

And Crid, FWIW I have co-founded and sold two companies, directly employing 60-70 people along the way. I imagine I have created more wealth and opportunity than most of the people posting here.

heh, what an amusing slap-fight.

Getting back to the question at hand... seems like they would be a good test case for getting an injunction, and maybe suing to overturn DOMA, since they are in fact legally married in a specific state. Can't a congress critter put in a stay to keep her from being deported? I'm surprised that there aren't a lot of people coming out in support.

OTOH, they've known each other since 1980, and you'd think they would have figured this out after 11 years, none of this should be new or a shock. From their perspective this is a great injustice... I have been close to several situations that were one issue or the other [greencards or same-marriages] but never a conjunction, so this is problems squared. Yet, what'd they think was going to happen?

The CNN piece was sneaky playing up what a "Conservative" congressman said about the Prez setting aside the prosecutions, BECAUSE EVERY CONGRESSMAN SHOULD BE SAYING THAT.

IF we expect the Prez to EXECUTE laws that Congress makes, then we can't allow this unilateral decision to execute certain laws and ignore others. This was bad precedence that Bush set, and Obama has continued even though he PLEDGED not to.

Regardless if you think the law is well or ill, there IS a way to fight it, but curling up in a ball, and saying 'it's not fair' isn't it.

And Crid, FWIW I have co-founded and sold two companies, directly employing 60-70 people along the way. I imagine I have created more wealth and opportunity than most of the people posting here. IN MY MIND

FIFY.

Amy as much as I love your column he may have point and here is why. The real Scotsmen argument. In several instances you called out mainly libratarinas who clearly espoused views that were counter to the general gist of the party as being fakes. Which in some instances is legit but with respect to political parties it's like foot prints in the tidal zone.

There are middle of the row democrats and republicans. These vary by state. Blue dog democrats tend to be southern dems and tend to come from red states. Just like Romney comes form one of the most blue progressive hell states in the union. In California which is very similar to the PRM the dems are ultra left communist wealth shifters. The same ones that prefer there to be 100 victims to protect just one criminal, since they are oppressed. So you view of democrats is justified but only in some locations.

> co-founded and sold two companies, directly
> employing 60-70

And yet in this life of achievement, you can only imaging things going better with government taking more money and more control from people's lives.

"And yet in this life of achievement, you can only imaging things going better with government taking more money and more control from people's lives." Um Crid these two are also advocating for more government too. The Dems want more social services and free loading for the bottom moocher class. The Reps want more security and military. Both have a serious hard on for jaming their government into places no government should ever go. Both sides want major regulatory increases but in different areas.

If this case makes it to SCOTUS, then the courts could strike it down as unconstitutional...although I wouldn't expect them to. Given their ruling on the Kelo case, the fact that they think corporations are people, and their pathological fear of birther cases (because they're waiting on Congress...never mind that SCOTUS settled the question in 1898), I think it's safe to say that we have the dumbest SCOTUS in U.S. history.

> Both sides want major regulatory increases

Never said otherwise.

The liberal love of government has no shame. They really, really think they're nicer people because they want to take over your life.

...the fact that [SCOTUS thinks] corporations are people....

Legally, corporations are people. The Supreme Court had no choice in the matter.

Corporate personhood a legal fiction created so that the people working for or buying stock in a corporation are not personally liable for everything the corporation does or publishes.

Unless you think the folks working for or owning stock in GM should have to divy up money from their own pockets to compensate the people whose Volts caught fire.

Legal personhood is also conveyed on cooperatives, associations, trusts, labor unions, partnerships, etc.

This fiction allows groups of people to come together to act as a single entity without risking their own assets beyond what they put into the organization.

These single entities have their own taxpayer identification numbers, credit records, legal liabilities, etc.

"The liberal love of government has no shame. They really, really think they're nicer people because they want to take over your life." The Republican's cloaking their takeover in morality is just as bad. I hate Michael Moore more than I despise Coulter, mainly due to their actually effect on me. Coulter action have zero effect on me personally, hetero and can afford trips to Switzerland. Moore wants my guns and my money which makes him a direct menace.

You come off condescending and smug toward people with different views from yours. - Franko

Here. Here's a mirror. Take a good, long look into it.

They met in 1980. So 31 years to figure out how to legally make it work and they have failed? Or failed to act? There are legal immigration policies that should have been explored.

Life is not fair and was never promised to be fair.

Amy, they should have been better because they want a better result.

Sitting back and bitching "no fair!" and waiting for someone else to make it all better...? Well, there are more effective ways of getting what you want.

Ask any white man that was passed over for a job or a promotion for a less-qualified minority or female. Ask any athlete that had a bad referee call. Ask any dad in family court held to a different standard than the mom. Life ain't fair. It doesn't mean you don't work to change the unfairness, it means you use the tools available, get creative and try to make it work to your benefit to get the result you want.

It may be cheap, but it is true.

Let me elaborate. Same sex partners do not get all the same benefits that hetero married couples get. Not yet, at least. IMHO they should prepare for problems by having medical powers of attorney drawn up and filed. They should hold property as JTWROS. They should establish each other -legally- as next of kin. All of these legal steps are legal in our country and recognized thoughout.

Is it fair that they should have to do this to get not even the same level of protection afforded by marriage? No. This still does not get them social security survivor benefits or medical bennies afforded to spouses. Should this be changed? I think so. Until it is changed, they should do what they must to legally protect their interests. And no, it isn't fair. It is prudent, though.

... so Frances Herbert should change her name to Herbert Frances - she could easily pass for male...