MOMania

By JATL

September 9, 2008 7:53 AM | Link to this

I think marriage just makes a big problem even bigger. This isn’t 1960. Young women today -even teen mothers -have more options than ever before for education, careers, etc. I guess a few last, but for the most part these marriages are just going to fall apart in a few months to a few years. If the two kids weren’t planning to get married before a baby arrived on the scene, then getting married just because a baby is coming is a recipe for disaster!

By momtoAlex&Max

September 9, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this

LOL, Theresa, I am just loving the use of the old fashioned phrases: “make an honest woman out of her”..”find herself in a family way”..LOL, such a reminder that people wouldn’t eve say the word pregnant in “mixed company”.

I guess all I can say in such a situation is that marriage and kids are hard under the best of circumstances, and I can’t imagine such a thing succeeding when you pair up a couple of teenagers. Palin’s daughter aside (since we KNOW she’s gonna get lots of financial help), most teenagers have to get low paying jobs (little money = stress in the marriage), they will have little resources (more stress), they are not mature enough to handle marriage’s little struggles and need for compromise, and let’s face it: very, very few people marry their high school sweetheart. Yeah, I know that there are success stories out there, but they are not the norm.

IMHO, getting married at that age is a recipie for disaster.

By Renee

September 9, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

When two teens marry after the girl gets pregnant, how does this “make an honest woman” of the girl? She got knocked up while single - it’s way to late to be an “honest woman.”

Marriage is hard enough. When two immoral teens (premarital sex without protection is not only immoral but incredibly stupid) marry - how are they supposed to be smart enough to figure out how to work through hard times? Marriage in this situation is doomed to fail.

By another viewpoint

September 9, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

What ever happened to relinguishing the baby for adoption to a married couple who wants a child, and has the maturity and financial wherewithall to provide a stable home?

By My3Kids

September 9, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

When my sister became pregnant as a teen, she wanted to get married and so did the father. However, my parents and my sister didn’t know about the loop hole that used to exist about being able to get married while pregnant without parental permission. The 2 did eventually marry after my sister turned 18, 2 years later. My sister’s pregnancy was not an accident; it was on purpose to prevent my family from moving out of state. Don’t ask…16 years later I still don’t get it. LOL! They were married for over 12 years. I believe they were married 14 years.

Of course they had their ups and downs, however living under my parents’ roof for the first year and half prevented some of the money problems. My ex BIL made good money, even in high school, so my sister never had to work. She did occasionally to give her more to do.

The biggest problem marrying young is people grow up differently and many times they out grow each other.

Forcing people to marry because of a pregnancy is not the answer either. Forcing the couple apart doesn’t help either (I have seen that before). I think let the teens do what they want but at the same time if they want to get married because of the pregnancy , make them wait for a little while and let them know a pregnancy is not the end of things but you may have to rework your plans.

By Gina

September 9, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

In the case of Bristol Palin, it would be politically correct for her to marry (since abstinence only education was so successful). She is a “baby mama”…. Did Fox News put that in the captions? Their marriage and any other teen marriage is doomed! **And it’s very ghetto that Sarah’s baby and Bristol’s baby will be in the same age range. Trashy!

By My3Kids

September 9, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this

@another viewpoint:

This still happens. However, the parents have to agree to place the child up for adoption.

@Renee: Are they still considered immoral if the protection failed?

By Stan

September 9, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

I think one thing that is not being conisdered, which makes this case a bit unique, is that these kids are from Alaska. Things are a little different there than in the lower 48. A lot of things are more old fashioned there. More often people that live in Alaska do what they have to do vs what they want to do. In a lot of ways I think things are simplier though of course much harder than here in Georgia.

My $.02 anyway.

By georgia peach

September 9, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

whatever happened to “birth controll” in this day and age “no one” should be having unprotected sex. Using protection not only protects against unwanted pregnancies, but it could also save lives against diseases like aid’s and other “std’s”. what is this about making the female an honest woman, what about the guy?

By 8==D

September 9, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

Here’s the thing. They were supposedly already talking about getting married before they found out she was pregnant…..or so they say….so what if they have to tie the knot a little earlier than originally intendended……As for statistics that say teenage marriages are more likely to end in divorce who cares…..if they make a mistake…..it is their mistake to make…..we have no right to judge them for being in love.

And all you religious right idiots can go pound sand because your logic is flawed.

By Appalled

September 9, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

I agree with JATL, MomTo.., & GA Peach. PLUS: I feel as soon as a teenage girl finds out she’s pregnant, she NEEDS to have an abortion. It’s only a fetus anyway & even if she gave it up for adoption, she’d miss all that school & there’s no guarantee it would get a good home anyway

By lovelyliz

September 9, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this

Absolutely not. To force a shotgun wedding in 2008 on a couple of teenagers, any underage teens, is to make a mockery of what should be a sacred institution.

SUnderage sex that leads to underage pregnancy and force fed into an shotgun wedding in this day and age leads to one thing: a bitter divorce before the baby can walk.

The purpose of marriage is to hold the family together. To marry when there is basis on which to support yourself, let alone a spouse and child: no education, no job, no $$$ is a formula for failure.

Besides what difference would it be to the baby if it’s parents never married or if they na=married and divorced as quickly as so many of these do these days?

By Jason

September 9, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

A pregnant teen should only get married if her hypocrite mother is running for public office on a “Christian values” platform. I mean, otherwise, what’s the point? The girl’s already going to hell for having premarital sex, right?

By Sarah

September 9, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

I find it …for lack or a better word, horrible politics that a seventeen year old girl that is not running for public office has been vetted more than the guy who is actually running for President, Obama. Her past has been made public fodder, that’s just not right. Gina, since you’re an obvious Obama fanatic, how many of his supporters are Baby Mama’s, as you so eloquently put it. At least she chose to keep the baby. Gina I serioulsy doubt she’ll expect a handout, foodstamps or welfare to help support her child. I can smell the fear in the Obama camp now, and yes…I thank Fox News for bringing the real Obama to the table and not some fluffed up junk like MSNBC News who had to demote their two anchors for prematurely ejaculating on themselves each time The Chosen One was on air. Gina, if you want to see trashy, go look int he mirror. I bet you’ll be looking dead in the eyes of 250+ pounds of trash in your own image.

By creative

September 9, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

I know this was another era, but my mother & father were married at 17 and 20 years old, respectively. They endured rough and tough times, but they worked through things and raised 3 happy and successful children. They made mistakes and started off their marriage with challenges, but they made it their life’s work to make it all work. I am grateful for their loyalty and devotion, and they have now been married almost 50 years.

By lovelyliz

September 9, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

If you don’t plan on spending the rest of your lives together it doesn’t make sense to marry.

Every have-to, shotgun underage pregnancy related marriage I’ve been privvy to in the last 20 years, and I do mean every single one of them, has ended in divorce.

By Mom to three

September 9, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

Married with a baby during the teenage years is certainly a difficult thing. And no one is ever surprised when these teenage marriages fail. However, “the disaster” has already happened. Both teens have grown up far too fast and are bringing a new life into the world — married or not.

If the new parents agree to it, I don’t see the problem with marriage. It lets them at least try to make a go of being a family. True, they probably won’t celebrate their 50th anniversary. But they will have a chance to celebrate some of their baby’s milestones together. The father will be around to really bond with his child, and the mother won’t have to go through this alone. That has to be a silver lining for the baby and the young parents.

It’s the difference between having the father around as a visitor (or not at all) from the very beginning and at least giving him the chance to be a dad to his child. Even if they get divorced, the dad will have a foundation for a relationship with his child.

A teenage pregnancy means life is going to be more difficult, and I don’t think young parents should be “forced” to marry. But I don’t think marriage between teen parents is pointless either — even if they end up divorcing a few years later. I just don’t see how it hurts the baby to have both parents around for as long as possible.

Of course, teen parents (married or not) will still need help and support from their families — the more, the better.

But the CDC report says it’s not just teen marriages that are more likely to fail. The risk of divorcing within 10 years is high if you before the age of 25. Is it fair to say that two 24-year-old college (or grad school) graduates shouldn’t get married and have children because they have a higher risk of getting divorced within 10 years?

By Mystery Poster

September 9, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

My parents married in the early 1960s because my mom was pregnant with me.

I got to endure the guilt of watching them be unhappy for 25 years.

Let’s think about the best interest of the child, not “saving face” for Palin.

By Conservative in DeKalb

September 9, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Sarah at 8:58 said

“I find it …for lack or a better word, horrible politics that a seventeen year old girl that is not running for public office has been vetted more than the guy who is actually running for President, Obama”

Excuse me. But if that lady is going to run as an arch conservative who wants abstinence only education, and no contraceptives provided to teens, then this is very important.

And PLEASE remember, it was John McCain’s camp and Sarah Palin herself who knew this would come up and shine a spotlight on her kid at this fragile time. You think that is a good mother? Putting her career ahead of her children’s mental care? Sorry… but this Christian is not impressed with this woman. Sorry.

By B4Real

September 9, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

At 17, I thought that I too was in love with my soul mate. About 3 years later I met my real soulmate and we’ve been together for 19 years. We didn’t marry until we were in our late 20’s because it just made sense. Why get married so young? And there is no making an honest woman out of this teenager. Nor does getting married make him an honest man. Personally, I feel that it’s the child that suffers. Why not give him/her up for adoption to a family with the financial means and maturity to raise this child. Teenage marriage is a disaster waiting to happen.

By Sarah

September 9, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

Conservative in DeKalb, you claim to be a true conservative and you’ll vote Obama? Surely you can do better than that? And you were schooled where, Clayton County?

By HB

September 9, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

I feel young teens should NOT marry and frankly it should be illegal under age 18, parental permission or not. They simply are not mature enough to make that decision and their parents should not make that lifetime commitment for them. If they need parental permission, then they are not old enough to marry. If they aren’t old enough to vote or join the military, they aren’t old enough to decide to marry. Period. A pregnant 17-year-old may contemplate marriage, but she should have to wait until age 18 to walk down the aisle.

By Slotl

September 9, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

Choice ! If a teen wants to keep the baby without marrying the baby daddy, that’s ok as long as taxpayers don’t have to pay for the future support of the mother and baby

By gg

September 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

Sarah, you are a racist fool. Everyone who disagrees with “shotgun” marriages are not in the “Obama camp”. Gina was simply stating that what is going on is hypocritical and things are different for folks with money and power. I certainly hope you are not my neighbor whose name is Sarah. Scarey.

By lovin life

September 9, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

YEAH Sarah I was up all night and can’t make my brain work right to make full thoughts, so for the rest of the day I just say Ditto Sarah!!!!

By Slotl

September 9, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

Choice! If she wants to keep the baby without marrying the baby daddy, it is OK as long as she is not raising the child at taxpayer expense

By Conservative in DeKalb

September 9, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

Wow. Sarah… did I even mention Obama? No. I just mentioned the obvious hypocrisy. Although you obviously have issues with an African American in power.

And being “conservative” does not always mean being an evangelical. In fact I was a McCain supporter until he picked this vapid lady to stand by his side… “Vapid.” Look it up in a dictionary. If you own one… I can’t keep up with what books you people are banning these days.

By Rusty

September 9, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

BREAKING NEWS!! AJC Atlanta..”Former Miss Alaska and Smyrna resident Marylin Blackburn supports Obama!” I can see the magazine covers now..’The women who beat Sarah Palin at something and why Barrack loves them.’

By Slotl

September 9, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

According to People Magazine (9/22 issue), Sarah and Todd Palin eloped on Aug 29, 1988. Track Palin was born in April, 1989. Could Bristol be following in her mother’s footsteps?

By Right on the Right

September 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

I’m with Sarah. Most of these comments have Liberal Agenda written all over them - it’s okay for us to US to do what we want, but if a Republican displays the same behavior it’s hypocritical. The agenda is to divide and conquer - not unite.

The Liberal Agenda is a about Change … to their way of thinking. The Democratic Party, the one that claims to be the most compassionate and understanding of average Americans, is often the most vile and hatred if you don’t agree with THEM.

Sarah Palin and her family is more REAL than your precious Hillary, and that’s what has you Liberals upset. Demoralizing a teenager is the Liberal way, especially when her mother is the next Vice President.

By LM

September 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

Where to begin….

If two children make the choice to have sex, protected or unprotected, they then have the right to make the choice if they feel the need to marry. My opinion is of no consequences and I don’t feel I should stand in judgement. There but for the grace of God go I, ya know?

Teenagers by their very nature don’t always listen to what parents say and do. How many times have I led by example and then still had to ask my daughter to do things, ie.. wipe the counter, pick up your clothes, clean up after yourself. I have that dicussion daily, I have the sex talk not daily but still very regulary. I hope and pray she hears me, but don’t believe she will always listen. Judging Palin by what her daughter has done makes little sense to me. I think the kids should be left out of the politics, husbands and wives however are fair game as far as I am concerned. This is a person who shares the canidates views, goals and ambitions. I want to know what kind of person my canidate is out of the spotlight and in real life, the spouse can give a prety good idea who the canidate really is.

By Lori

September 9, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

I am the eldest child of a hasty wedding. Yes, they married because of me. My parents were both barely twenty and still in school when their fooling around lead to pregnancy. They made it work and had a loving marriage for nearly thirty years until my father died. But I remember those first few years were pretty rocky. I think the best opinions would be theirs. They taught us: 1-Don’t fool around before marriage. 2-Use portection. 3-If you get pregnant, whether you choose to adopt, keep, or abort we’ll support you. 4- Don’t marry until you’re sure He’s right for you. Both my sister and I had year-long engagements because of this. And both of us have been married 10+ years now. No early babies either.

By Roger Predactor

September 9, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

I have two friend that got pregnant and married when they were 15 and 16. They are still happily married 15 years later.

By Sally

September 9, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

No, no, no, no, and no. It will be hard enough to raise a child at 17/18. Focus on raising that baby, getting an education and growing up. YOu don’t need to add the stress of a marriage on top of all that you are faced with.

By beentheredonethat

September 9, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

I was an unwed pregnant teen (thankfully already out of high school). My mother encouraged me to marry my boyfriend, but we didn’t. I think it was the right choice. We are still together (married now for almost 8 years), but I don’t know if we would be if we had married when I became pregnant. It was VERY early in our relationship, and we’ve been through a lot of ups and downs since then. I always thought it was better to have him be a part of our childs life and if we ended up getting married, great, but if not, then our child wouldn’t have to live through a divorce.

By larry

September 9, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

@sarah “Gina, if you want to see trashy, go look int he mirror. I bet you’ll be looking dead in the eyes of 250+ pounds of trash in your own image.”

HA!

Good job at arguing the point and not making this personal. It is people like you who are ruining this country. Small minded and when losing, turn to personal attacks.

Congrats. You are about to get the country you deserve. The bad news is we are all going down with you.

By Stacey

September 9, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

While I think that (ideally) people should not have kids before marriage, I don’t believe that people (especially teens) should get married just because they are pregnant. IMO, people take both marriage and parenthood too lightly these days.

By Roy

September 9, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

Sarah… Seriously get some help for your anger issues. No one should behave in polite society as you are behaving. It is unseemly and makes you look angry and foolish. Others may agree with your sentiment, but personal attacks make you look crazy and not smart.

By Diane

September 9, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

What a stupid question. As in most situations, it depends upon the people. As a rule, no, two mistakes don’t make things right. But sometimes it works. Bottom line is, this whole blog is so people can cast judgement about Palin’s daughter marrying the dad of her baby. Nunya business!

By JeremiahWright

September 9, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

Appalled,

I’m guessing you’re being sarcastic, or joking, or whatever about a girl NEEDING an abortion. If you’re not joking, then you’re a feel. No one needs an abortion. Thousands of couples in this country are desperate to adopt.

By JeremiahWright

September 9, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

Appalled,

I’m guessing you’re being sarcastic, or joking, or whatever about a girl NEEDING an abortion. If you’re not joking, then you’re a fool. No one needs an abortion. Thousands of couples in this country are desperate to adopt.

By Best of Both Worlds

September 9, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

I didn’t even DATE till I was in my 30’s, I was too into working on a career first. I’m glad I waited. I have a great husband & the career I’ve always wanted. When I was in high school, a lot of the other girls were quite shallow & had no interests or ambitions other than “getting a guy”.I’m actually thankful for these girls; they showed me how I would NOT want my life to end up

By Jesse's Girl

September 9, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

As with abortion and adoption…..this too is a very personal choice. If 2 teens find themselves in this situation, then its up to them as to what road to take. Parents should guide and advice, but in the end…allow them to choose.I believe that forcing or even strongly suggesting that they marry is a recipe for certain doom. Having a baby at any age requires stability and a modecum of peace. I do not believe that marriage guarantees those things.

As I have said a number of times….teens will ultimately make up their own minds about having sex. IF a baby is the result of that choice…. it is our duty as parents to assist in the way THEY see fit. Forcing their already unsure hand produces nothing but more stress.

By Gina

September 9, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

Slutty Sarah…. Me and my Obama supporting friends are black, educated professionals (not baby mama’s). The Obama camp & his supporters have nothing to fear. The Palins are glorified white trash and so are you! No, I am nowhere close to 250lbs. I am 115 lbs in my 30s (and that’s without dieting). When I look in the mirror I say “Wow, I look amazing.” Do you weigh 115, hell no… more like 200lbs. You’re probably a lifelong member of Jenny Craig. Now go back to your trailer park!

By Glen

September 9, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

Although they are very young, I believe Bristol and Levi will suceed as a couple. I wish them nothing but the best.

By Still Appalled

September 9, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

No, Jeremiah, I am not being sarcastic, nor am I a “feel”. (Ever notice that folks with backward ways of ‘thinking’? are illiterate as well??) The world is already cluttered up with too much unwanted trash & 17 is way too young to go through the whole parent thing. And not that many people are willing to adopt. Most want “their own”, which is purely ego & not because they truly want a child. Anyone who is so insistant on having “their own” just wants to show the world they can get a sex partner. Sad…

By OhTheDrama

September 9, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

Go “Conservative in Dekalb” and “gg”. “Sarah” was spewing the same closeminded bunk on the blog earlier this week about Sarah Palin. For some reason she feels she can’t support Sarah Palin without defending every aspect of her life. And likewise, if someone else has anything negative to say about a Republican candidate, then that person “must be” in the Obama camp.

What a fool!!!!

By Gina

September 9, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Sarah…. Seek counseling in a hurry(inpatient mental health facility preferred), I think you need someone to talk to (and meds). I can tell you don’t have friends. Who could stand to be around you for 5 minutes?

By andthensome

September 9, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

You know this is the politically correct thing to do. And 30 years later, when she looks back on it, maybe she can avoid the questions about unfaithfulness that led to her divorce, like John McCain did in his CNN Revealed interview. He lied about being separated when he met his current wife, and he lied about filing applying for a marriage license, before his divorce was final. They had the paper right there. And his only response was, “That was 30 years ago, blah, blah, blah.” But the clincher was when Cindy looked the interviewer in the eye and said, “He wanted a good wife and mother …” implying that his first wife wasn’t one. That woman waited faithfully 5 1/2 years for him to be released from a POW camp, and he gets out and can’t keep it in his pants. That’s how he rewarded her? These people are cut from the same cloth. Even when the light show them to be imperfect, they will never own up to it!

By Jesse's Girl

September 9, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

Wow…whats next children? Yo momma so fat she….? You’re both behaving like midddle school girls fighting in the bathroom.

By Happy in LaLa land

September 9, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Ohhh, like, I totally agree with Glen. I also believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny & that everyone is wonderful & we should all leave our doors unlocked all night because no one would ever dream of harming another human being. Love & peace, man

By Perfection

September 9, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Please Gina - no one is interested in your fanasty-land of personal statistics. Go ahead and dream a little - you’ll wake up when your babies start crying!

By K&K's Mom

September 9, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

WOW Sarah, is your last name Palin?

IMO, I too agree that no one should get married because of pregnancy. Marriage is hard enough without that kind of drama from day one. Having been married for 7+ years and with two children and having survived some serious marital issues without being pregnant, I just don’t think that this is the answer. I also agree that this is a political issue and had she not been chosen for the VP position, that girl would probably be a single mom. I also agree that this is an important issue because as I said last week when we discussed Palin and her motherhood, this situation speaks volumes about her ability to take care of home and country.

And BTW, yes she will be living off the taxpayers money in the VP House or at least that VP money that her parents will send each month to keep the two highschool dropouts a float.

That’s if we all fall for the okey doke.

So Sarah (Palin) Go Obiden ‘08

By Captain Midnight

September 9, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

Gina, you forgot to mention the mandatory “I drive a ,and I make $ a year. So typical.

By Slotl

September 9, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

Why are the conservative viewpoints caustic and resort to personal attacks??

How about staying on the ISSUE of this blog.

By pleeeze

September 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Sarah & Gina: You both are too far out there. First off, each couple is different, the divorce rate is high regardless of age. It’s a personal decision on abortion, adoption and marriage. BTW my uncle is 6 months older than I and it was because my dad is the oldest of 13 children and we are far from trashy. I am an independent and there are good things/bad things on both sides of the ticket. I would like to know why it’s okay to go after Palin for what her 17 year old daughter did but not okay to bring up Obama’s father and his beliefs or the church he attended for 20 plus years. Hipocracy on both sides.

By new mom

September 9, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

Speaking as someone who tried to have a baby for 8 years, I would personally strongly encourage adoption. We looked into it ourselves, and although it wasn’t the right solution for us, we have many friends who both adopted children and who were adopted children. Those we know, both adopting parents and adopted children are some of the most grateful and appreciative people we have ever met.

And speaking for someone who finally got pregnant, I can not imagine how any girl or woman could consider abortion—I knew that baby so well while she was growing in me, that when she was born, it was like meeting a long lost friend. However, in this country, women have CHOICE, whether I agree with it or not. That choice also includes raising the baby unmarried, marrying the father, or choosing adoption. Everyone has to find their own path and make the best decision for themselves and their families, and I try not to judge them.

And please—let’s stop with the name-calling and stick with the issue presented. Unfortunately, controversial topics tend to bring out the whackos (on both sides) and invade our mild-mannered little blog…

Have a great day, everyone! :)

By K&K's Mom

September 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

Conservative can’t talk about the issues, if you haven’t learned that look at Palins speeches. The same lines are repeated day after day after day after day……. They only know spewwing politics, “if I tear you down enough then I bring myself up and feel better about being uppity while everyone around me is suffering.”

By pleeeze

September 9, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

be careful K & K’s mom, uppity is a racial cutdown, or so they say.

By Zach's Mom

September 9, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

The origional question mentioned the girl living with her parents. What if the parents don’t want that. Why shouldn’t she go live with HIS parents? Their daughter made an adult decision and needs to live with in. People get married for a lot of different reasons. Having a baby is not “playing house” If you want to have it and keep it, grow up, get married, get a job, an apartment and make more responsible choices thank you made in the beginning.

By K&K's Mom

September 9, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

Pleeze…. what are you talking about? Eveyone has roasted Obama for months about the pastor he sat under and what about his father? He’s dead, let the man rest in peace. You people only want to read one side of the story that you like… But now Palin’s pastor in play and NO ONE wants to touch it. So yes her politics and her kind of of governing have A LOT to do with who we are supposed to vote for.

I am an independent but I can see both sides clearly, and I have begun to support OBiden because the Republicans can’t dish what they put out, and I’m tired of that kind os politics, so it is time for * REAL CHANGE*.

By Katie

September 9, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Teens having sex is normal. What’s abnormal is the way Americans look at it. Look in history, it is very common for young women (13, 14, 15) to be married and have children. Look at other cultures—India, Mexico, Middle East, women in those places often marry very young. Americans have warped minds about sex. It’s as natural as breathing—get over it.

By lovelyliz

September 9, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

I agree that people hsouldn’t have children before they are married.

However, it’s an even bigger mistake to marry only because an underage girl gets pregnant because a marriage that is doomed to fail is early is no real marriage at all.

By new mom

September 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

K&K’s Mom, you had better be careful using that “U-word”…I’m sure you don’t want to appear insensitive, right?

By pleeeze

September 9, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

K & K’s mom: I must have missed the roasting you claim Obama got for the pastor…a couple of days or weeks and it was swept under the rug. I’ll say it again…..pleeze

By Dan

September 9, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

K&K are you seriously trying to equate Obama himself choosing that crackpot as a mentor which clearly shows at the very least poor judgement and Palins daughter getting pregnant, which shows poor judgement by a family member. Take a break from drinking the cool-aid and look at some issues

By Perfection

September 9, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

K&K’s Mom is more than likely aka Gina - guess the babies woke up!

By Denise

September 9, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

Some folks are blaming the spotlight on Bristol Palin on “liberals” (as if that’s a dirty word or an invalid stance) when in fact her mother is discussing this openly and as she sees fit. I don’t give a flip about Bristol’s being pregnant; I do find that her mother’s “abstinence only” teaching has failed in her own household and, if anything, Sarah Palin needs to see the errors of her thinking on this matter. Had she been more open to other sex education, MAYBE her daughter would not be pregnant. Ultimately the choice was Bristol’s.

As far as the “baby mama” comments, if you recall, Michelle Obama was called “Obama’s baby mama”. If calling Bristol - an unwed pregnant teen - a “baby mama” is offensive, why wasn’t it so when folks were calling a MARRIED, GROWN WOMAN a “baby mama”? It’s shenanigans and just feeds into the “us” vs. “them” mentality we have in our country and it’s disgusting.

As for pregnant teens getting married because of the pregnancy, I do not think it is a wise decision for MOST. Yes, some have successful relationships; my grandparents got pregnant and married but were married almost 62 years before Granny died. However, some don’t and I think it’s unfair to force children to marry for appearance sake. Children are not mature enough to take care of themselves, much less a baby, and will need a lot of parental assistance and guidance. People should get married when they are ready to assume all the responsibilities of marriage and I don’t think teenagers are in a position to do so.

By Modern Mom

September 9, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

IMO - it depends on the teens’ viewS of marriage and (ESPECIALLY!) whether or not they have had good role models from their own parents.

I can only say this because my mom was pregnant when she married my father. BUT they made their marriage work - mainly because they went into marriage knowing it was going to be hard and they were going to have to struggle to make it work.

52 years later and they are still going strong, more in love now than ever!

I sound old saying this, but “youngsters” these days have no appreciation for the work that goes into anything - life, work, marriage, careers… Such an “instant gratification” generation!!!

By K&K's Mom

September 9, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

I am one of “those people” and I am not sensitive about it. I don’t care if you call me uppity. Damn right I am uppity, I am a college educated with a graduate degree women,who has a beautiful home with a two car garage, a white picket fence and 2.5 children. My mother and father, although divorced, worked hard to give me the best that they could by sending me to good schools, they grew me up in the church and the suburbs of Atlanta and not the run down innercity of Chicago so that I could one day be called uppity.

So please STOP putting us all in the same box. I think that is what Gina @10:19 AM was trying to say. Everyone wants to put all black people in the same box like we think the same and do the same things and act the same. The point Gina was trying to make is that we are all different just like white people are all different. Just because the Palin family is trashy and glad to be “f**n rednecks” doesn’t mean that all white people are trashy and rednecks.

For those of us that want REAL CHANGE we need to start with our way of thinking about those that are not like us.

By The South is a Cesspool

September 9, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

This is a very complicated issue. On the one hand, I do believe that Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy is a private matter to the extent that she isn’t a Hollywood celebrity nor is she running for public office. She didn’t seek the spotlight — her mother did. That said, Conservative in DeKalb@9:09 AM had it right. If you’re running on an ultra conservative platform where you believe abstinence is the only thing that ought to be taught, you oppose abortion, even cases of rape and incest, I don’t think it’s out of line to question that line of thinking. While I think SOME in the media take pleasure at Bristol’s expense, Gov. Palin did parade her and the teen father during the convention making her daughter’s plight in context to her arch-conservative views more of an issue.

(and let’s not kid ourselves, FOX News Channel would have done the same thing conservatives claim the left media has done to Palin if the shoe were on the other foot. If Obama had a teen-age daughter who was pregnant, do you folks honestly think we wouldn’t be hearing chatter about the destruction of the black family, low morals, bad character and questions about how can you expect to be the representative family of America when you have amoral children.)

As for the teen marriages, some of the earlier postings said don’t compound one mistake with another. There are several options/alternatives including adoption.

By Steve

September 9, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Has anyone else seen Father of the Bride 2 and find it funny that Palin’s child and grandchild will be about the same age?

It’s not trashy, it’s just funny.

Steve Martin did it, Palin can too! hahahaha

By Yolanda

September 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

I did not read anything about “responsibility” or “consequences for actions” — if they don’t marry, and the baby is not given up for adoption, who ends up with the care and well being of the baby? As I see it, it will be the ‘mother’ and the ‘father’ may or may not be at all involved. Both of them should know, and be made an example to other teens, that there is always a consequence to any action - good or bad.

By Black Girl

September 9, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950’s and 1960’s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King’s protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as “that N**** preacher.”

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist “Dixiecrats” did not all migrate to the Republican Party. “Dixiecrats” declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those “Dixiecrats” continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former “Dixiecrat” is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment,” including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970’s with President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” which was an effort on the Part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party’s economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

By Jesse's Girl

September 9, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

First you write…

“Just because the Palin family is trashy and glad to be f-ing rednecks, doesn’t mean all white people are trashy and rednecks”

Then you write…

“For those of us that want rreal change we need to start with our way of thinking about those that are not like us”

Um….I’m just gonna leave it at that.

By JJ

September 9, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

newmom Very well said, your 10:58 post. (We may have to bump you up to priority status for the cruise).

And Glen your 10:22 post sums it all up for me. I agree 100% with your statment. It was very nice to see such a nice comment, amoung all this nastiness here today.

Can we please take the politics out of our Mom blog and answer the question posed? Ya’ll go fight politics over at Jim Wooten’s blog.

By new mom

September 9, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

K&K’s Mom, I appreciate what you said, and I agree that many paint other racial groups with the same brush.

In defense of us old boring white folks, I say truthfully that I would bet most of us are scared of saying the wrong word, phrase, etc. not ever really knowing what wi