Just wait till they find out that Obama has two black children, then they'll really lose it.

I sure hope they don't lynch anyone, which is what Southerners usually do when they get all confused.

Let's see, a honkey ass cracker, from SC, saying he doesn't "trust" Obama. I doubt it has anything to do with any Moslem rumors; this dude just doesn't want to see the good ol' USA headed up by a filthy nigger.

He seems like a nice enough guy, but do you think he would have tossed his keys to Charles Mudede? Even if Charles had his nappy head picked perfectly?

I can't tell by the way this comment is phrased: is he even aware you're gay?

ug...and I fucking hate Rock Hill, I'm so sorry you're stuck there.

I'm so sorry you're in Rock Hill. But you'll see why I left SC when I was 18 and don't want to live there again. Take a trip to Charleston, and go visit the hot closeted military boys at the Citadel. I'm sure you'll enjoy the eye candy there as well as the College of Charleston (University of Charleston).

Hope Dan flew into Charlotte vs. Columbia - way too fewer flights and way less to do. There are gay bars in both cities however.

I would add that this particular issue becomes rather complicated whan addressing it in the context of "States Rights", because it creates an imbalance in terms of individual rights which are (or theoretically should be) protected under the U.S. Constitution.

For example, what happens if/when all the states around S.C. legalize gay marriage? Suddenly a situation arises where individual citizens have certain rights in adjoining states that they are not granted in S.C. What happens then if a gay married couple from, say, Georgia, gets into a traffic accident in Charleston, and the legal spouse is denied hospital visitation rights and/or power of attorney? It creates a HUGE legal, logistical, and even economic quandry (for instance, would their insurance company be exempt from paying certain benefits, because S.C. law does not recognize their married status?).

The only proper venue for resolving an issue that spans states, and supercedes individual state legislative authority is at the Federal level. Just as the Federal government has the power to regulate the movement of goods and services across state lines, it makes sense, logically at least, that the freedom of individuals to be secure in their persons, and in their personal relationships, when similarly travelling between states, should likewise be codified under Federal statute.

Why don't you EVER report on the fact that many Gay couples disagree with the whole gay marriage thing? The community is not near as homogeneous as you portray it as.

I support it, but I know a few people who don't for a whole variety of reasons.

Why don't you report about that?! It could be a hell of a lot more interesting than your globe trotting BS.

BTW, doesn't your kid miss you when you have been gone for almost 2 weeks on "assignment"? You couldn't have done this exact same crap from home?

2. Many states considered slaves property.

3. Civil War; 14th and 15th. Amenments; Jim Crow; federal legislation to ensure voting rights and nondiscrimination, etc.

It kinda all became a federal thingy then.

4. States define voting rights. Would you be cool with states denying women the right to vote?

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Further, based on the 14th Amendment, the Federal government has the right to regulate the procedures the states set up for voting and elections through the Voting Rights Act, at least when it comes to racial barriers to voter participation.

States get to set various other restrictions, such as those on felons, though, so voting is a shared responsibility of the federal and state governments.

that way NO ONE GETS MARRIED, and the gays & wack christians can shut the fuck up about gay marriage & start dealing with the fact that the planet is dying.

People who don't want to get married already have that right, regardless of their orientation. It's non-news, and not worth wasting ink or electrons on reporting, sheesh!

As for the kid, one can only presume that his needs are suitably attended to by the other parent - isn't that the whole point of having TWO parent household?

I swear, your IQ must drop with every word you type...