I heard that newspapers were selling out all in New York. Obama really IS special. He made print relevant again.

I would still be ever so grateful if someone could direct me to information which details the LEGAL difference between a civil union and marriage.

There’s no obvious benefit to having a social union marked by a marriage rite; the desire for the rite and the enjoyment derived from it is all emotion. From that perspective, there’s no more reason for heteros to have marriage rites than there is for gays and lesbians — but it’s useless to argue that heteros should just ignore same-sex unions, whether they’re marriages or legal paperwork. Too many people view marriage as a sacrament that same-sex marriages desecrate. One can’t wish away Catholicism or Fundamentalism, or convince fundamentalists that their beliefs aren’t rational.

SRS

1) Marriage is a sacrament.
2) The primary purpose of sex within marriage is to procreate.
3) Violation of a sacrament is wrong.
4) Recreational sex is immoral.
5) Homosexuality is abnormal, and engaging in such sex is immoral.

People who hold at least some of those beliefs are likely, I think, to react negatively to the idea of same-sex marriage and to passively oppose it. People who hold all of those beliefs will be angered when confronted with the issue of same-sex marriage and will actively oppose the legitimization of it.

There are sound arguments to be made for legitimizing same-sex marriage, since one can make a case for society as a whole benefiting from monogamous, legal relationships; in that respect, promiscuous heteros hurt society at least as much as promiscuous gays and lesbians do. But the religious beliefs that opponents of same-sex marriage hold, that underlie that opposition — I don’t see a way to convince them that they’re wrong without attacking their religion. Engaging in arguments with religion-based opponents will always fail.

SRS

That’s why I find the term “gay marriage” so stupid. There’s just marriage. You don’t get “gay married.” You get married.

Why is it important? Because civil society is a fragile construct that at its beautiful heart depends on a conception of the individual that comes before sex, race and orientation. To deny someone full participation in that society based on one of those non-essential factors threatens the fabric of our basic social compact and at the very least poisons its nature.

This is a nice letter on the matter from a different perspective:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/welcome-to-the.html

It’s not a murky subject for me, I want to add. I’m asking for the info to give out to others because I live in the south where religion is king. I personally see no reason to prevent homosexuals from getting married, and I hope that one day they can suffer through the same annoying marriage discussions and pressures as we do.

(on a side note, I’m not at all surprised by the information about which demographic most often voted to prevent homosexuals from getting married)

He didn’t say precisely that, but both he and McCain had, IIRC, pledged to close Gitmo. Neither gave a timeline, but I believe that both meant this promise.

Palin commented during a 10/31 radio interview that negative media coverage of her campaign’s attacks on Obama (questioning his relationships with Ayers, Wright, et al.) “could” threaten her freedom of speech. That’s a strange attitude to have about the First Amendment, but, considering that she reportedly thought Africa was a country, not a continent, and didn’t know which countries participated in NAFTA — well, her political opinions generally could be considered uninformed.

ABC News’s Jake Tapper covered the Obama campaign’s treatment of reporters (including the plane incident) on his blog, and complained about the absence of press conferences (involving either Obama or Biden) during the last weeks of the campaign; Howard Kurtz, on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” regularly questioned the press coverage of McCain vs. Obama.

Given that Obama had a steady lead in the polls, it made sense tactically to limit the candidates’ press availability, and thereby limit the possibilities for embarrassing questions or answers to be publicized. Given that right-wingers were resorting to crackpot notions such as Obama’s birth certificate being faked, etc., in attempts to kill his candidacy instantly, one can sympathize with Obama’s desire to play it safe.

SRS

Mark, did John McCain throwing Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd off of the campaign’s airplane give you any First Amendment concerns? Even just a whiff? Of course it didn’t. IOKIYAR.

So, will President Obama swing wide the jail cells of Guantanamo on Jan. 21st? I don’t recall him saying that at any point.

Question: Do any of the Obama campaign’s strong-arm tactics (such as tossing “hostile” reporters from the campaign’s airplane) give you any First Amendment concerns? Even just a whiff?

Note the following descriptions…

Arizona Proposition 102: This measure would amend the state constitution so that only a union between one man and one woman would be valid or recognized as a marriage in the state.

Arkansas Initiative 1: This measure would prohibit unmarried “sexual partner[s]” from adopting children or from serving as foster parents.

California Proposition 8: This measure would amend the state constitution to specify that only marriages between one man and one woman would be recognized as valid in the state.

Florida Amendment 2: This measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

These are not measures designed by people who think it’s time for gay marriage, but by those who think it’s never time for gay marriage.

Except for the South.

No, the people around me didn’t get less fired up because he was a conservative. It was clear he was conservative from the very beginning. He was the Bork replacement! His conservative identity was a given. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. They were fired up because he was a relatively young African-American and actually because he was an African-American conservative, which isn’t a person you saw in politics a whole lot. They became less fired up when his hearings got weird and to a lesser extent that he wasn’t more impressive when more of his record was exposed and when he spoke on his own behalf.

I wasn’t hanging out with Florence Kennedy, and the president of NOW barely speaks for anyone, and plenty of people like Ralph Nader are critical of President-Elect Obama. So what? For the record, I thought Bork got screwed, but I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.

People were more thrilled about Colin Powell and Condi Rice than they were about Warren Christopher and Stephen Hadley, and so on. That seems really clear to me. But none of them are the president-elect of the US and none of them were elected by that many millions of people or whatever. The presidency is special.

Translation: “Before they found out how conservative Thomas was” . Recalling the words of NOW’s Florence Kennedy, “We’re going to ‘bork’ him”…which Thomas himself later characterized as “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves”.

http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/not_comics_i_would_like_to_make_a_prediction_today_as_well/

Unless you were being deliberately provocative.

Which, I suppose, is possible.

It’s not solely about people reaching a high position and the appropriate applause they should receive for said achievement. It’s a difficult, human event with multiple, worthy perspectives. Sheesh.

1. Plenty of people were super-fired up when Thomas was initially named, before things got weird.
2. Thomas was the second guy, not the first. Thurgood Marshall was a titanic figure of the 20th Century, and for years the only justice most people could name.
3. An elected office brings with it a different meaning than being appointed and approved.
4. All apologies to the value system of William Howard Taft, but being named to the Supreme Court is not becoming President of the United States.

Also: gay marriage yesterday. Or: marriage yesterday. An issue so stupid it can only be discussed through the use of a term that is ridiculous. Let’s all get gay married!

Flaming. See what I did there?

Yeah, like helping Peggy Joseph with her gas and mortgage payments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ikOxi9yYk