Political Punch

Well, for one... Visiting a conservative college to speak about ones campaign doesnt been one has changed their liberal opinion.
For two... It just shows respect. Although these colleges are conservative and have really bad taste in making impulsive and hyprocritical decisions, they should hear the liberal view. they may have a change in heart!

If Obama can't win with working class white voters why should he be the nominee? If he cannot win PA or Ohio why should he be the nominee? If he can’t win in Florida, Michigan, California, or the states that really matters what good is he? Why can’t he close the deal? The argument that the person who wins the most states is garbage. In November the winner takes all Electoral College heavily favors Clinton. "Super Dems" be smart and choose the hill that is where you will fine a win for the houses.

Heterosexuals need to get their act straight to not act-up. Sacred vows of marriage should be protected from adultery, lying, & defilement. The Judeo-Christian definition of marriage: the God ordained & established pre-existing precedent of Holy matrimony only between 1 man & 1 woman. Holy matrimony in marriage needs to be rediscovered not redefined. In regards to a vow or an Oath note the quote of existing Law for politicians (policyticians), ..."all officers shall take an Oath closing with the declaration, so help me God...THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION" from Holy Trinity Church vs. U.S. Supreme Court's NEVER OVERTURNED UNANIMOUS DECISION 2-29-1892. The truth is "so help me God" reaffirms The Truth of this nation's Ordained Establishment of the Judeo-Christian Religion & not that counterfeit religion of Darwinian secular humanism. Failing the Judeo-Christian Religious Test proves a Commander-in-Chief Officer (CINCO) is not fit for office to adMINISTER The Truth in Law. "Willful Deception" would best describe someone who persists in making ridiculous claims despite of all Self-Evidence & evidence to the contrary. Is "Willful Deception" like lying & perjury or does it depend on what the meaning of the word is...IS!

What is this "protect marriage between one man and one woman" about? Protect from what???

What Congressional Act or U.S. Supreme Court decision overturned the UNANIMOUS decision of Holy Trinity Church vs U.S. Supreme Court 2-29-1892?
Can people be trusted to read the decision & decide for themselves?

A nation desiring to be ignorant & free wishes something that can never be...willful or not.

If the Congress voted unanimously all the time there would that make a supreme court or presidency obsolete Conventionally speaking of the Constitution from a Constitutional Convention perspective?

Real eyes realize real lies©®™ & that's nothing but The Truth..."so help me God"!

Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. Supreme Court has nothing to do with the presidential oath. It does NOT provide legal support supplementing the ending phrase of "so help me God" to the presidential oath. The requirements of the presidential oath are spelled out in the Constitution. In fact, it is highly likely that should any court in this country ever rule that the phrase "so help me God" MUST be included in an oath of office it would be overturned as a violation of the Constitution's ban on a "religious test."

When taking an oath of office, the deponent is allowed to choose to "affirm" rather than "swear." Even in those oaths, other than the presidential oath, that include the phrase "so help me God," the deponent is permitted to drop the "so help me God" if he or she chooses to affirm rather than swear.

It has been common practice for decades that presidents-elect choose to add the phrase "so help me God" to their oath of office but that is NOT a requirement and it has NEVER been a requirement, just as it is not now and never has been a requirement that the Bible be used.

No amount of quoting irrelevant Supreme Court rulings or citing the height of buildings in the nation's capital will change the requirements set forth in the Constitution for the presidential oath.

In summation, the never overturned UNANIMOUSLY decided case in Holy Trinity Church vs U.S. Supreme Court February 29, 1892
has the legal support supplementing the ending phrase of "so help me God" of the Oath Pledge of the President-elect. In fact, let's end the date to settle the debate once & for all with a civil union & have a Constitutional Convention to protect the pre-existing precedent of marriage between one man & one woman.
If legislation is to be surreptitiously passed by judicial fiat like some legal coup the final arbiter on the matter is the Highest Court Building in the land which is The U.S. Congress with the Final Supreme Court being that of The People held by Constitutional Convention.

"Willful ignorance" would best describe someone who persists in making ridiculous claims in spite of all evidence to the contrary. To claim that the State Department's official website is wrong on the requirements of the presidential oath is ludicrous.

In fact, let's end the date to settle the debate once & for all with a civil union & have a Constitutional Convention to protect marriage between one man & one woman.

Checkmate! Better questions, better answers, better facts!

It's not surprising most haven't read the Constitution & do not understand the Judeo-Christian history of our laws. The swearing in ceremony is unconstitutionally incomplete if the President-elect has not completely affirmed the oath pledge with "So help me God" by the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. The legal reason this legal requirement of "So help me God" is so legally important is once Elected, the President of the U.S.; while not a member of the Judiciary, also has the Constitutional Authority & Power to disband, remove, increase, or decrease the number of members of the Judiciary sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court which is the primary reason any judicial oligarchy would fear the authority & powers of a strong President who decided to disband the Supreme Court with the U.S. Congress (The People) being the actual SUPREME COURT! The U.S. Congressional building is taller than the executive & judicial branch buildings to show the dominance of The People to have the final say over all branches or one. The President also has the power of pardon which is both an executive & judicial act, however with a consistent two-thirds majority vote Congress could nullify any Presidency.

If someone tries to disparage Me by calling Me an idiot, would that behavior reveal bigotry towards the mentally handicapped/challenged? If I am an idiot, is that genetic or environmental and can I change if I am a born idiot? Let's pass a law to fix it! Let's get a law passed to make stupid illegal & outlaw idiocy. Oops! I forget, you can't fix stupid...stupid things like adulterous behavior as people never learn & never change, right? Am I a born liar too? Can I be a liar in my private life but be trusted with the public life of the Presidency? Does the best liar get to be President?

Where did you find this nonsense? Probably Regent or Liberty, right?

For the last time, you have no clue what you are talking about. There is absolutely no requirement that the presidential oath include the phrase "so help me God."

In fact, even a federal judge can eliminate the "so help me God" phrase from the oath if they choose to "affirm" instead of "swear." They are only required to include the "so help me God" phrase at the end of their oath if they choose to "swear" rather than "affirm."

Many presidents have chosen to include the phrase "so help me God" at the end of their oath but it is NOT a requirment and NEVER has been.

The language of the presidential oath is specified in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." However, the swearing in ceremony is unconstitutionally incomplete if the President-elect has not completely affirmed the oath pledge with "So help me God" by the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. The legal reason this legal requirement of "So help me God" is so legally important is once Elected, the President of the U.S.; while not a member of the Judiciary, also has the Constitutional Authority & Power to disband, remove, increase, or decrease the number of members of the Judiciary sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

ONLY not mentioned... whereas the Obscure time this Judeo-Christian Tradition was not adMinistered was 1901 with Theodore Roosevelt. Polysexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and all human sexuality like polygamy or adultery are behavioral choices. People are responsible for their actions & choices even when they choose to engage in or not to engage in an act by choice. Sex is an act by choice.

Society has a right to prohibit consenting adults from choosing to engage in any private or public behavior or act. The U.S. Constitution can even be used to deprive people of life or limb under due process of law for an illegal act. Federal law supersedes any misquoted policy from the State Department. The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 Legally Requires the Oath Pledge of "so help me God" by the President-elect to do otherwise is a violation of the oath to uphold it & the swearing in would be unconstitutional if not said.

Lets keep the facts straight, shall we? The same person who has been wrong about everything he or she has written in these comments is now asserting that Theodore Roosevelt was the ONLY president who was not sworn in on a Bible. That statement is false!

Lyndon Johnson did NOT use a Bible when he was sworn in in 1963 following the death of John F. Kennedy. He used a missal.

It is quite likely that several early presidents did not use a Bible but the record is unclear. The record is clear in Lyndon Johnson's case. He used a missal in 1963 and a Bible in 1965.

Sex is an act. People are sexual beings. To be born with a genetic mutation such as hermaphroditism, intersexuality, mosaicism, chimerism, or to be born as as a conjoined/siamese twin is not a choice. All human sexuality is a behavioral choice.

According to the State Department, the presidential oath does NOT end with the phrase "so help me God" and there is no requirement that the president-elect place his or her hand on any book. http://usinfo.state.gov/special/inauguration/inauguration_oath.html

As a matter of fact, there is no requirement that any elected official use a Bible when being sworn in.

The same person who incorrectly claimed that the presidential oath ends with the phrase "so help me God" is also incorrectly claiming that society has a right to prohibit consenting adults from choosing to engage in private homosexual behavior.

Perhaps this person lives in some other country? Perhaps that is why he or she is ignorant on matters relating to the United States Constitution, including something as basic as the oath of office for the presidency, confusing it with the oath taken by federal employees.

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of consenting adults to engage in private homosexual behavior. This was upheld by the Supreme Court five years ago in Lawrence v. Texas.

There are no currently valid federal or state laws prohibiting homosexual behavior except that it is still prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice for members of the armed services. The UCMJ still prohibits adultery, too.

Established by Law under the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 the Oath of Office of the U.S. Presidency has always ended with the Legal Requirement to Pledge "so help me GOD" and it is America's Judeo-Christian Heritage Tradition for the president-elect to take the Oath Pledge with his hand on The Holy Bible whereas the Obscure time this Judeo-Christian Tradition was not adMinistered was 1901 with Theodore Roosevelt. Polysexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and all human sexuality like polygamy or adultery are behavioral choices. People are responsible for their actions & choices even when they choose to engage in or not to engage in an act by choice.

The language of the presidential oath is specified in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The president-elect traditionally takes the oath with his hand on a Bible. However, this is not a requirement -- Theodore Roosevelt took the oath in 1901 without swearing on a Bible.

The vice-president-elect takes the same oath as other federal employees:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

The presidential oath does NOT end with the words "so help me God" as incorrectly stated by someone else in these comments, nor is there a requirement to place one's hand on the Bible or any other book, holy or otherwise.

People are born sexual, just as some people are born hermaphrodites, like born with a blue eye & brown eye, born male and female. Some people are born intersexual known as mosaicism and chimerism. Some people are born as a conjoined/siamese twins. All human sexuality is a behavioral choice. Hermaphroditism is genetic. People discriminate as to which eye or eyes they look into before choosing whom they will bed or wed.

People are born homosexual, just as people are born heterosexual, born with blue eyes, born male or female. It is not a choice. It is genetic.

Polygomy is not genetic.

Is it not true that the Oath of Office of the U.S. Presidency ends with the keyphrase "so help Me GOD" by Law under the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 with one's hand over heart & the other on "The Holy Bible"?

Ive read all these comments and Im in the middle of reading, "The 7th Article of the U.S. Constitution adopted & ratified in the year of our LORD". I wondered which LORD the imperfect founding fathers were referring to & discovered a never overturned UNANIMOUS U.S. Supreme Court opinion with over 87 legal case precedents in 1 case by Holy Trinity Church vs U.S. Supreme Court 2-29-1892 declaring imperfect America as a Judeo-Christian nation. That can't be I thought to myself as I read the Last Verse of our National Anthem...America's Outlawed Prayer hidden in a song's poem...The Star-Spangled Banner's Last Verse being, "Oh! Thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land (that's U.S.)
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! (that's HIM!)
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just, And this be our motto:
IN GOD IS OUR TRUST (Psalms 16:1)
And The Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave (Song of Solomon 2:4)
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!" After all, how dare they sneak God into our National Anthem? It went from bad to worse as I saw the Last Verse of "My Country tis of Thee"...“Our father’s God, to Thee, Author of Liberty, To Thee we sing; Long may our land be Bright with Freedom’s Holy Light; Protect us by Thy Might, Great God, our King!” Fed up I got out a good book to read & read...
"The Holy Bible".You should all read this book to see 'Do not kill', but be Life; 'Do not commit adultery', but be Faithful; 'Do not bear false witness & lie, be Truthful'; 'Love your neighbor as yourself'; 'Love God for your neighbor & for yourself'...to live a better life & for more freedom of religious speech please refer to 'The Holy Bible'. Someone's moral behavior is bound to take precedence over someone else's ethics. It's called the rule of law.

Ive read all these conservative comments and Im in the middle of reading,"Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America".You should all read this book to see how christian conservatives acted as a mob for hundreds of years, doing Gods work in America by use of free speech/action killing those they deemed sinful.

Apparently this writer doesn't understand Christianity.

Messiah is a Christian school, so it shouldn't be an issue when they have Christian policies on their campus. We have a right to religion in the USA, and what people believe privately is their own business.

um...last time i checked, the BIBLE equated sin with sin. all sin is the same in God' eyes, no matter whether it's lying, stealing, adultery, or homosexuality.

and the last time i checked, we still live in the USA, where we have the RIGHT to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Messiah College is open and honest about their Biblical positions - can you say the same about our 3 wonderful choices for president?? i think not.

i find it ironic that Messiah is being blasted for their position on homosexuality in this day and age. at least they have the fortitude to stand up for their beliefs and not sway in the political wind of public, i mean, news media opinion.

If everyone has a 'right' to practice their own lifestyle(s) or behavior(s), then why are the polygamists being 'persecuted'?

Everyone has a right to practice their own lifestyles. It's a free county so the universities, students, and political leader have the choice to do whatever they want. I don’t think it's a big deal that Obama and Clinton visited Messiah college. Yes, they are liberals and actually it's good that they vested Messiah because it gave them thee opportunity to views conservative's view points. No one should blindly follow beliefs in one direction. Since this article talks about tolerance, it’s just fair to tolerate their visit. Don’t you think?

"How can the left be so tolerant of various lifestyles, but so intolerant of viewpoints (and the people that hold them) that oppose them?"

Javan, for people who believe in a free and fair society, it really does not matter whether a "lifestyle" or a "viewpoint" is different from our own. It matters whether any given lifestyle or viewpoint infringes on the rights of others. I don't care if Messiah or Bob Jones administrators live a lifestyle of celibacy or choose their own mate on the basis of race and/or sex. I DO care if they do not support the rights of other adults to make their own relationship choices and to be respected and treated as equals under the law. That's where they cross the line into bigotry.

Hillary hears God speak to her when she walks in the woods and Obama hears twenty years of Rev. Wright's anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-white sermons and says I heard nothing. Whose telling the truth?

Wow, I like how the author cited a STUDENT'S HOMEPAGE that refers to counseling homosexuals, not even an OFFICIAL Messiah College website. Do your research, Messiah is incomparable to Bob Jones in nearly every way. Messiah College is about embracing diversity and differences, not shutting out all views different from our own.

I am a Christian but I respect people's privacy and his sexual inclinations. I don't like homosexuality and yet I think we should be open-minded enough not to take this matter to college. PLEASE FIND OUT WHO IS BEHIND THIS for us. It looks bad on us, the Christians. It is not that serious. Comparing it to STEAL, SEXUAL ABUSE, ADULTERY. Where is the beef? It is an over-statement. AGAIN WHO IS BEHIND ALL THESE CRAPS AND ANGER.

I can't believe that any of this makes any bit of difference to the college or the candidates for that matter. As an alumni and now a parent of a student at Messiah College, I can only defend the college. It is listed as a private Christian college. Therefore, this college has the right to make up rules according to the biblical concepts it espouses. Last I checked freedom of religion was still part of the constitution, although some of the citizens of the US seem to try to exclude that.

It is sad to me that so many who preach that every voice should be heard and every culture and religion included are the same ones who seem to think that because a small minority do not share Christian ideals, we need to stay away from those churches and now Christian colleges.

I feel truly blessed that I graduated from this school with a very solid education and also am glad that I send my son to a school where he gets a great education and where there is very little violence and crime. Maybe it is because of some of those ideals and rules that the campus does not have as much violence and crime as public colleges and universities.

The college sticks to a Biblical basis. They don't speak out against homosexuality. They let people come on campus and protest it. Students are rather sympathetic to homosexuals. Chapels are held surrounding the issue of homosexuality and how students should be inclusive. Perhaps people should do their research before slamming Messiah College - a place dedicated to broadening peoples world views - not promoting one idea or way of life but to promote exploration of faith - whatever that means for the individual

The college sticks to a Biblical basis. They don't speak out against homosexuality. They let people come on campus and protest it. Students are rather sympathetic to homosexuals. Chapels are held surrounding the issue of homosexuality and how students should be inclusive. Perhaps people should do their research before slamming Messiah College - a place dedicated to broadening peoples world views - not promoting one idea or way of life but to promote exploration of faith - whatever that means for the individual

Will people succumb to the dictatorship of relativism to be enslaved by their behaviors?

Society has the right to pass laws against consenting adults choosing to practice the sexual behaviors of polygamy, bigamy, adultery, & homosexuality, but does law enforcement only enforce politically-correct laws against polygamy? Its like outlawing marriage to prevent divorce.

If it weren't for the fact these religions are often practiced by the very people they label as 'sinful', it would be a joke. A religion can label breathing as sinful. Who the hell cares what a religion labels as sinful? If you don't like it, there are other religions which are more open to nature's reality.

As the world expands its horizons, and powers of reason, unyielding, intolerant and dogmatic religions will fade. Mankind has yet to hit adolescence insofar as its level of civilized behavior goes. By and large, most eight year olds act the same in a group as humanity does as a social whole. Most religions merely add to the fray by creating artificial differences between people over which strife, violence and terrorism often break out. If only these religions were viewed with pity rather than relevance, their self-serving pronouncements would be taken with the same level of importance as the local high-school cheerleader tryouts - it may mean something to that high school, but the community at large couldn't care less. Would that mankind matures faster. I ain't holding my breath.

Messiah College did not create the concept of sin. Nor did they write the scriptures. They merely choose to be a college that admits people from their own community who share their own basic beliefs. Freedom to worship the God of our choice is the very foundation of the need for a country like the U.S.
Some of you seem to think that christians do not have the right to practice their faith Faith and the right to practice that faith is an essential freedome in this country. When did it fall out of fashion to protect the basic rights of Americans? There are many faiths in my country and I am proud of that. I am not a buddhist but I would fight for the right for other Americans to be buddhist if they so chose.

Sexual behavior is 100% biological by the laws of nature & of nature's God and even though society does not tolerate all behaviors insofar as passing laws against behaviors it doesn't condone, people still make a discriminatory conscious choice to choose who, what, & how many they will bed or wed.

Sexual behavior is 100% biological by the laws of nature & of nature's God and even though society does not tolerate all behaviors insofar as passing laws against behaviors it doesn't condone, people still make a discriminatory conscious choice to choose who, what, & how many they will bed or wed.

Both Senators should have researched this church more closely. Is IS a discriminatory college, not matter how you look at it. Since it has been proven time and again that homosexuality is 100% biological in nature, then the college may as well impose a ban on and discriminate against people with blue eyes. To claim that homoosexuality is a "sin" is simply and completely ignorant.

I also live within 10 miles of Messiah College and I recall that about a decade or so ago, the theater arts professor at the school was asked by his students to share his views on homosexuality. He stated that he believed that St. Paul would not object to a couple of the same sex living in a loving and monogamous relationship. Some of his students reported him to the administration and he was summarily fired. So much for compassion.

Whether it be polygamy, bigamy, adultery, homosexuality, bisexuality, or trysexuality for those who will try anything, does society have the right to pass laws restricting, abolishing, & limiting full enjoyment of those behaviors even if we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Society passes laws against behaviors it does not tolerate. Society does not condone every behavior whether stealing or bestiality, should those behaviors be given special rights over others? Donkey or Elephant?

Oh boy...What a non-issue. I actually watched the "Compassion Forum" and found it to be quite enlightening. Both Barack and Hillary stuck to their already voiced positions in response to the questions answered. Homosexuality was not included in the agenda. What was most interesting was to see folks of obviously different interpretations of their beliefs interact in a relatively civil manner.Presumably all of the folks were of one religious faith or another: Barack,Hillary both of Christian persuasions versus the inteviewers and audience. The body language of the interviewers/audience as they listened and tried to reconcile the candidates answers was telling. The most tension was generated with the "when does life begin?" question as it relates to a woman's right to choose. Both Hillary and Barack responsed honestly and in accordance with their previously stated positions.

Can we talk about the elephant in the room?
The majority of Americans also think homosexuality is a sin, or wrong, or unnatural.
In every instance of homosexual marriage being placed on a ballot for Americans it is overwhelmingly defeated.
The media is trying to change these views, but it isn't working.
Obama & Hillary need the votes of everyday working Americans. Niether can afford to be the candidate of the extreme left fringe.
It isn't bigoted to say that homosexuality is a sin.While it may seem an advantage to demonize those who disagree with condoning or embracing homosexuality, it has backfired.
That all-or-nothing approach is pushing people farther apart.

I live within 10 miles of Messiah College and can tell you this. A couple years ago they forced the student council president to leave school after they found out he was gay. Now how bad of a student and person could this man have been to be elected as President of the Student council? The place isn't fit for Mickey Mouse to speak!!!

hey, folks, can we get on with it? Who in the hell cares where these folks spoke......did they have to become baptized in the faith of the college to use their chairs and microphones? We ought to be a little more selective in the annoying little pieces of tripe we are fed as news. Get a life...go bowling with Barack or having a beer with Hillary.

Jose C - I think by "sick" they mean "icky," which seems to be their primary reason for restricting the constitutional rights of others.

Maybe instead of looking into the obscure clauses in the founding documents of every institution these people visit in the campaign trail, we could discuss.... I don't know, maybe what the candidates would actually do as President of the United States?

Where is the spirit of tolerance in this article? How can the left be so tolerant of various lifestyles, but so intolerant of viewpoints (and the people that hold them) that oppose them? I see a huge double standard here.

Posted by: Lee | Apr 15, 2008 7:42:10 AM

No double standard here. The tolerance applies narrowly to your right to your beliefs, including bigotry. You don't have to like gays but you have no right to limit their full enjoyment of those inalienable rights we take for granted for everyone--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I think anybody who does some research would find that there is a HUGE difference between Messiah College and Bob Jones.

Jake, how many Christian colleges do you think you could find that did NOT officially frown on homosexuality? Are you suggesting that Obama and Clinton should have boycotted the entire Christian religion because it officially frowns on homosexuality?

Even if you think this is in the same league as visiting a college that is openly racist and bigoted even in its admission policy, it is not true that no one is criticizing Obama and Clinton for this, because after all, YOU ARE.

If 'they' censor Me then tolerance must be for everyone else but Me. What if it was you instead of Me. Oh, that's right...the only right the drive-by media gives Me is their hallowed 'moment of silence' where nothing gets said & therefore nothing gets done. For the wrongs of evil to flourish is when good people hear no evil, see no evil, & are silent about any evil as it is become the norm. If evil is in the eye of the beholder, what is truth? Let's censor a 'moment of silence' permanently & speak out.

As such, its "community covenant" states that members of the Messiah College community "avoid such sinful practices as drunkenness, stealing, dishonesty, profanity, occult practices, sexual intercourse outside of marriage, homosexual behavior, and sexually exploitative or abusive behavior."

Something's wrong with this picture. Isn't religion an instance of occult practice?

Freedom of Choice? Does society advocate adultery & stealing? Zero tolerance for adultery as it too is an insidious choice. If bigamy or polygamy is a choice why not homosexuality? Instead children in Texas are stripped from exposure to an illegal polygamous lifestyle but not a homosexual one. Whether it be 1, 2, or 3 or more lovers at a time people still choose. Love is a choice & sex is a choice unless people are just animals gone wild. Is bestiality the next norm? Donkey or Elephant?

Not much tolerance here!

Well, it looks like some Far from Right voters are swinging to the Democrats. More ignorance about a subject that has been denied fair press coverage. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Homosexuality is found in every facet of life on Earth..scientific and medical evidence support that fact. Fair reporting ,once again, has been push aside for public favoritism...just as the fair reporting of the associations of one particular candidate has been bypassd by the MSM in favor of its golden child.

Looks like they just want votes to me. I am a christian and I dont think it's right for gays to be married by a pastor but...I agree with what someone said earlier, should the presidential candidates, who need and want everyone's opinion and support, not speak to young voters simply because their college teaches certain things which cause others to freak out? No. Everyone deserves to know where these candidates stand, even if they attend a school with controversial ethics.

The writer is correct in saying that if a Republican had spoken at such a college, liberals would have made it an issue. As someone who is liberal on social issues and supports full civil rights for gay people, including the right to marry, I am disappointed in Clinton and Obama for appearing at this college. However, there is a difference between the Democratic candidates' appearance at this college and Bush's appearance at Bob Jones University: We know that Obama and Clinton disagree with the college's view of gay people and we know that Bush agrees with it.

Clinton...America's Eva Peron.

Wow, I didn't wake up this morning expecting to be called a hate monger for sharing an opinion. I also didn't identify myself as a christian so it is interesting that this is how mtr2311 needed to color my posting. Defending the rights of fellow Americans, both gay and Christian, seemed a decent thing to do. And I don't think that necessarily has to place me in either camp.

I'm gay and I see this as a NON-ISSUE and I'm NOT outraged or care they went.

I know both candidates support LGBT rights and both will get rid of "Don't ask, Don't tell". They are not bigots.

What I would like to know is should the candidates not talk to young voters because the college is anti-lgbt rights?

George Stephanopoulos: George is a Clinton supporter, bias, and surrogate?

Obama all the way!

How dare liberals appear at such a conservative college. What was CNN thinking!? Hats off to Jake for, once again, blowing the lid off of hypocracy in America.

So Jake we should vote John McCain because Republicans are more supportive of LGBT rights?

Gee whiz how are the flaming liberals going to spin this "fact"?

I sure we will hear all the excuses in the world............you know everything but the truth.

The Dems, clearly not the party that our liberal MSM wolfpack press has protrayed for the last several decades.

Don't Americans have better things to be concerned about than the political correctness of politics, religion, and homosexuality. The "compassion" debate was no debate at all... just ways for the Christian right to badger the Dem. candidates.

While I am certainly a Christian, I have no use for "religion" as it seems more and more these days to be full of hate and judgement. Isn't that what religion is NOT supposed to be?

Pandering hypocrites both!

There you have it as they say the lesser evil will do less harm. Pick your own poison.

Oh brother. This debate again. No, they should not have appeared at this college which promotes hate filled Bible banging bigotry. The majority of Christians are good decent people that go through life attempting to do the right thing. But then you have the hate mongers like Chris who think that both cultures should co-exist. What a bunch of crap. Hatred that is shielded by scripture is still hatred and bigotry and should not be accepted by anyone. There are Christians and then there are "christians." We know which one Chris is.