At least that's a consistent position. I still wonder why they're after gay marriage prior to banning divorce, but that's just me.

So much for growth in jobs.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: They have their notion of that past halcyon day when everything was perfect, regardless of whether it ever existed. . .

WHAT? Nothing EVER existed except what they believe! How DARE you imply that they are making things up!

_{/Rose colored glasses wouldn't be able to bring back what they believe}

I don't understand this nucleus metaphor we have going with families. What's the nucleas? What's the protons and neutrons? Are there electrons? Positrons? Are our genitals like the quarks?

DamnYankees: Are our genitals like the quarks?

Mine is a strange quark.

/ok, it's a superstring

I don't understand why the democrats don't just point out that this has already gone to the state supreme court and been ruled unconstiutional. This is also the same group of Republicans that are trying to impeach the remaining supreme court justices, even though even the Republican governor has pointed out that "disagreeiing with someone" isn't cause for impeachment.

Bob Van Der Plaats and his deciples can't be kicked out soon enough. They won a lot this last round because most Iowans didn't take them seriously, but if they continue to do stuff like this I don't doubt that the voters of a very moderate state like Iowa will be kicking them to the curb in 2012.

House Republicans will introduce legislation this week to begin the process to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.

But I thought it was just the name 'marriage' that was sacred! They totes said that it has nothing to do with discrimination!

I don't know why they aren't pushing for whole super families: grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, &tc. all under one roof. That seems *way* more traditional.

/23 of us living in a shoe box in the middle of the road.

And 30 years of trickle down economics surely has had nothing to do with the relatively recent necessity of two income households.

If both parents didn't have to work to keep their heads above water, then maybe more moms would stay at home.

Wow. I wonder why we need two income families now and whose economic policies led to it becoming necessary in the first place. Someone should do some research.

wyltoknow: Two-income families are absolutely required in today's society, however. How can anyone even debate this?

Personally, I believe that, absent an extended family support structure, living as a single income family is the way to go. This has more to do with living below one's means in case something terrible happens to the sole income provider. If the second person wants to get a job to supplement the family income, that's great, but that income should not be relied upon to support the family.

The fact that living as a single income family is nearly impossible today says a lot.

/I've told my wife that if she ever makes more money than me, I'll be more than happy to quit my job and stay at home.

the economy is in the crapper, we have NO idea how to solve our energy problem(s), the Chinese are beating the tar out of us in the manufacturing sector and jobs are bleeding out of the country at an ever increasing rate. And i'm not even going to begin to touch the war on drugs, the war on terror, the various wars in the middle east, or even the fact that we somehow let NORTH KOREA get a hold of nuclear weapons!

And what do the Republicans concentrate on...? the gays.

I do not care about gay marriage. I want a functional economy. I want this country to be the leader in technological development. I don't give a damn who gets married to whom, or what someone does in their own bedroom. The Republicans need to stop being obsessed with homosexuality and start focusing on basics. But that's just my two cents, so take it for what you will.

Weaver95: And what do the Republicans concentrate on...? the gays.

We live in a perpetual election cycle. Gotta start frothing up the base early.

BKITU: Weaver95: And what do the Republicans concentrate on...? the gays.

We live in a perpetual election cycle. Gotta start frothing up the base early.

you should hear limbaugh today. Rush is STILL pissed off about that sheriff who dissed him in the wake of the giffords shooting.

Weaver95: we have NO idea how to solve our energy problem(s),

No, we do, but it's *hard*.

/And we don't want to do anything *hard*.

Has anyone pointed out that historically not only did both parents work, but the children did too? Whether on the farm or in the factory.

FTFA: But the resolution they've prepared is more sweeping than that, a move intended to help place finality on the issue of the legality of same-sex unions, said Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, who is the lead sponsor of House Joint Resolution 6.

Odd thing to say, since the Iowa Supreme Court already provided finality to the issue. If the Court's decision is not "final," neither is the Legislature's, since Iowans could always call a Constitutional Convention and overwrite them with a new Iowa Constitution.

What, like Pierre and Marie Curie?

Weaver95: you should hear limbaugh today. Rush is STILL pissed off about that sheriff who dissed him in the wake of the giffords shooting.

honestly? How has your brain not leaked out of your ears listening to that trash?

BigTuna: And 30 years of trickle down economics surely has had nothing to do with the relatively recent necessity of two income households.

Game, set and match.

/oh the irony

what_now: Weaver95: you should hear limbaugh today. Rush is STILL pissed off about that sheriff who dissed him in the wake of the giffords shooting.

honestly? How has your brain not leaked out of your ears listening to that trash?

years of working the IT hell desk has rendered me immune to rampant stupidity.

Rush really REALLY didn't like that sheriff. I've never seen him so angry before. which is downright weird - I get that Rush is obsessed with Obama. I mean that makes sense. But why keep harping on a press conference from a guy who doesn't even have a national pulpit? And what the guy said was fairly mild. But there you go..that was Limbaugh's rant for the day...

The neccessity of two income families HAS had impact on the traditional family structure. Further, the cutting of benefits to those same working mothers puts a bind on their ability to care for those kids as well, and often influences their decision making process.

Obviously the way to keep families together, and locked into loveless reationships that share only an alcoholic stupor and self loathing is to cut benefits to working mothers, and encourage "traditional" marriage.

Because nothing says lovin' like women who want to stick their heads in an oven...

How's about this: you want a return to "traditional family values"?

Then exercise some. Compassion and charity might go a long ways further than mandating behavior. Especially mandating behavior that comes from a dream of middle class America that never existed, and only idealized.

Aaaand we're back to the Dan Quayles all heaping scorn on Murphy Brown for "glamorizing" single parenthood. Thing is, I'd welcome a Republican as smart as Quayle these days. If you'd told me at the time that he would EVER be passed up as not just "Dumbest Republican Ever," but "Dumbest Republican V.P. Nominee Ever" besides...? I would have laughed in your face. I was thirteen at the time, and even *I* know how the fu(k to spell "potato."

GOP Я PARTY OF PROGRUSS LOL

hubiestubert: Then exercise some. Compassion and charity might go a long ways further than mandating behavior. Especially mandating behavior that comes from a dream of middle class America that never existed, and only idealized.

These are people who get their concept of "family values" from Nick at Nite reruns. They wonder why we can't go back to Mayberry.

what_now: Weaver95: you should hear limbaugh today. Rush is STILL pissed off about that sheriff who dissed him in the wake of the giffords shooting.

honestly? How has your brain not leaked out of your ears listening to that trash?

We had a..discussion..about that once. He claims that's the only way to "understand" where the other side is coming from. I feel like if anything important comes up in that radio show, I can just head to Media Matters and save myself 3 hours a day.

GreenAdder: hubiestubert: Then exercise some. Compassion and charity might go a long ways further than mandating behavior. Especially mandating behavior that comes from a dream of middle class America that never existed, and only idealized.

These are people who get their concept of "family values" from Nick at Nite reruns. They wonder why we can't go back to Mayberry.

What bothers me about it, are these are the SAME folks who complain about Big Government telling them how to live their lives.

These are radicals who dislike our system of governance, and for the most part, dislike the American people.

hubiestubert: What bothers me about it, are these are the SAME folks who complain about Big Government telling them how to live their lives.

I know. I know.
From one side of their lips, they decry what they perceive as the erosion of freedoms. The other side spews vitriol about about forcing prayer back into schools and outlawing anything they deem "immoral."

Say what you will about fiscal conservatives or fiscal liberals. I don't know shiat about fixing the economy. If I did, I'd be out there doing it. But social conservatives - the ones who watch "Leave it to Beaver" like it's a documentary series - are simply dangerous.

ne2d: BigTuna: And 30 years of trickle down economics surely has had nothing to do with the relatively recent necessity of two income households.

I'ma need a citation on that one.

(I'm not saying it's wrong--I don't know either way)

Not that I have a citation, but what specifically are you asking for? The 'relatively recent' part is just an acknowledgment that both parents working full time was fairly rare until the past few decades. I suppose the necessity part is debatable but I don't think most families choose that option if there's any chance that cutting nonessential spending is enough to suffice.

ne2d: BigTuna: I suppose the necessity part is debatable but I don't think most families choose that option if there's any chance that cutting nonessential spending is enough to suffice.

You seem to be saying that the only reason a married woman would have a job or career is if her husband doesn't make enough money.

You seem to be doing an awful lot of projection. All I'm saying is that most families would prefer to have one parent stay at home with the child(ren) rather than having to go to work and pay the extraordinarily high costs of day care before seeing any additional income.

Does this mean that Sarah Palin will get off the campaign trail and back in the kitchen?

I actually entirely agree. We should have a system where two incomes is not an absolute requirement to live in a decent middle income neighborhood.

I WANT to work, and love what I do, but I would want either myself or my husband to stay at home with the child for the first 2 years or so. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen.

You would think with the internet, phones, etc etc, being a working parent would become easier with work-from-home options. Unfortunately, technology has just given us more time to spend on work instead of with the family.