After a week of “pandemic” discussions, American Morning viewers were confused by the ongoing “Swine Flu” coverage, questioning how serious the virus outbreak really is. V.P. Biden was heartily praised for his “honesty” regarding concerns about travel and the flu.
- Sandy: You have told us that Joe Biden is over reacting on the flu outbreak; you say that it is stupid to panic. Yet all your lead ins are about the pandemic, the swine flu update, the announcing voice referring to the flu in a ominous voice. Which is it? You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth....keeping us stirred up and the headlines of swine flu prominent and then saying it is no big deal.
- Beth: I am so glad to see that the V.P of the United States spoke his beliefs that he would not have his family travel on a plane. I cannot believe that a spokesperson from the White House has to change what Biden said. The spokesperson actually looked stupid. People need to stay home. Why don't they and why is it spreading? Because people listen to the news and listen to all the updates and listen to what the "officials" say and think it’s OK to travel. Gupta says that you can still be on a plane or a subway but stay away from people who looked sick!??! Well, I’m not quite sure how you would do that if you are in an enclosed space for a period of time and you are sitting with "0" space between you and another traveler. So thank you, V.P Biden for speaking the truth, and helping me to know that I have made the right decisions on not flying for the next couple of weeks. Shame on us for not for speaking the truth. We are actually letting economy rule instead of being worried about illness and a possibility of our children getting sick (that’s who is getting the brunt of it so far) as well as everybody else. Thank You for Telling the Truth, Joe Biden. I think you said the right thing!
Do you believe the H1N1 is a series heath issue, or just another seasonal virus? Who do you feel is to blame for the “hype” of the Swine Flu? Share your thoughts with us.
Miss California’s new role as national spokesperson for the anti-gay marriage movement had viewers polarized, as those opposed chose to support their arguments with religious doctrine, while those in favor invoked the U. S. Constitution as their method of defense.
- Sarah: This is in response to the discussion between Stephanie Miller and the Reagan website owner (I didn't catch his name). While I believe that Miss California is allowed to have her own opinion on same-sex marriage, my question is– when will people stop deferring to religion as their rationale for being against same-sex marriage when religion has nothing at all to do with legal matters in America? To the Reagan website owner's point, he said that he would 'choose God over New Hampshire', and Stephanie Miller responded that sarcastically that she would 'remain Godless'. Again, while it's absurd to confuse Christian doctrine with 'God', that is beside the point– 'God' should have no place in our legal matters. Would we give his party the same consideration if he was suggesting that Muslims or Mormons or Scientology doesn't believe in same-sex marriage– I argue no, but since Christianity is so widely accepted in the US as being untouchable, it's ok? I challenge our country to go back to basics and keep religion out of our laws and politics.
- Lee: I'm very concerned and disappointed in discussions regarding this issue [gay marriage]. Invariably (as Mr., Regan did) someone always brings up that this state or that state has voted to make marriage between a man and a woman. What everyone forgets about this issue is that we are representative democracy protected by a constitution. While it is important for people to vote we can not vote and make a law unless it falls within our constitution. We can take a vote and pass a law indicating that CNN will only cover good news. But even if every single person in the US voted yes, the law would quickly be determined a violation of the first amendment. Imagine how civil rights would have turned out if in the 1950 and 1960 if it was just up to a vote. And, no matter how many claims of "legislating from the bench” are made there is a reason we have a constitution. The constitution is to protect the minority from the majority! The majority only rules under the protection of the constitution. If it was just majority rule there would be no need for a constitution. That is what makes us and keep us great! We have to determine if marriage is civil right. If it is then everyone gets it. If it isn't then it’s a religious issue and should be taken out from under the control of the government, and the laws that govern unions between two people need to be consolidated under a "union" that all can participate in.
- Mitzi: I want to comment on the segment on gay marriage and the Miss USA contestant. She speaks for the majority of the nation and to try to be P C and trash her words is wrong. If you want to say that the country is ready for gay marriage then explain that to the majority of the country. We have not voted for gay marriage to be legal and I hope that we never will. Gay people should not be punished by the government in ways such as taxes, job rights, and such but the marriage was created by God and it was blessed by God. In his word it is defined as a union between a woman and a man. I for one will not question or disobey our maker. Should you have an opposing viewpoint? One last thing, the judge did ask for her opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion without being drug through the coals by you liberal news people.
The issue of gay marriage continues to polarize viewers. Tell us your opinion and weigh in on the national discussion.