How ironic. He says that gov't shouldn't be involved in such affairs, yet votes for a law that creates civil unions and creates additional expenses for taxpayers based upon this preferred status that he voted in.

See Peck signs everywhere, but never hear from the guy. All I read about him seems to be on the "shady" side. I wonder if he will publicly address some concerns?

I am not gay but I have worked with many. People are people and I am suprised that in 2012 we are still stigmatizing. Caterpillar would be a big lose for this community especialy they left this state, I think they employ nearly 11 % of local jobs with senior employees w/ 30 yrs service. What builds a community when all the industrial type jobs leave?

The expenses come about as laws are creating giving civil union partners benefits. Pretty interesting that an umarried male and female in a long term relationship can't get those same benefits. But hey, Joe and Mike can.

What does the 1st amendment have to do with this? Nowhere in the constitution does it grant rights based upon someone's sexual preferences. If it did, then you'd have to give the same rights to any person with unusual sexual preferences. If anything goes, then why night pedofiles? You can't logically tell me why they don't get the same benefits based upon their sexual preference. If you're going to throw morality out the window then you can't be choosy.

We've gotten long past the time when gays just wanted to be left alone to do their own thing. I couldn't care less about that. But it's gone from that to actually having them demand rights and to force their lifestyle onto others by having other pay for their benefits.

This is all fluff. Just like in every other election cycle since the beginning of time, politicians, activists, and the media "create" issues out of non-issues in order to muddy the water about the REAL concerns of the citizenry.
Most American's regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else are concerned, number one, about the ECONOMY.
We need intelligent answers to fixing the spending addiction which plagues every level of government from Congress down to local library boards.
We need serious cuts in the size and reach of the federal government.
We need serious, not pie-in-the-sky ideas, about energy policy.
We need to get gas prices wayyyy down from where they are now. If that means expanding domestic drilling, then do it. If it means building more refineries, then do it.

Jesus, Gay marriage - Who cares. It's not really my concern, yours, or our governments who is married happily. I'm constantly amazed at how those who are all for 'smaller government' want government dictating who can and can't be married. . Guess it's smaller government as long as you agree with me!

And Chris Spero nailed it. I don't think it matters which side you label yourself as, just about every point he highlighted is something we can all agree on. We need politicians who work for the voters instead of their special interest groups and lobbyists.

ayar- With cuts, that's exactly what I mean. We have a gross excess of public employees, especially at the federal level. We have multiple agencies duplicating the same work, and gross malfeasance on all levels. We definitely need to make major cuts.
I actually DO understand the oil commodity market. Increasing American oil production can help to drive down the prices, especially when turmoil in the Middle East is driving them up. As far as refineries, new, modern ones will serve us better than old, outdated ones. They would be safer, and more efficient.
As far as burning gasoline, it's still the best and most economical fuel currently available. No amount of pie-in-the-sky legislation will make someone come up with a car that burns magic fairy dust. Corn ethanol is a joke. It is far less efficient than gasoline, and takes an enormous amount of energy to produce. In fact, rather than being an "environmentally friendly" alternative to gasoline, it's actually rather unfriendly to the environment. Further, if it weren't for the fact that Americans are heavily subsidizing it, it would cost substantially more at the pump. The only people who are well served by ethanol are the corn producers. Meanwhile, the price of corn (also a commodity), has skyrocketed, which has driven up the cost of food, including meat, since livestock is fed with corn.
If there ever IS a reliable alternative to gasoline, I'm all for letting some entrepreneur develop it and bring it to market.

Chris, which departments have a gross excess of employees at the Federal level? my problem on this is that I'm just not fond of the thought of cutting jobs during a deep economic recession where the market is unstable to begin with. IDES is overloaded as it is. Senate bill 3816 [s.3816] would add jobs, which is the big first step. But back to the oil commodity market : shipping american oil overseas when we have a "shortage" of oil here, how do we stop that ? and the refineries - new ones might be more efficient, but shutting down the old ones to drive up price in this market setting [$4 + a gallon] is just plain wrong. Bringing down price - maybe subsidize refineries to keep them open? Alternatives ? me, I'm rooting for the ENV research- hydrogen fuel cell technology - pulled from water itself. cheap and plentiful. No corn needed.