It's pretty clear from the exit polling that younger people overwhelming voted against Prop 8, so it's sensible and logical to conclude that FOTF and other hate organizations are on the wrong side of history.

Gay marriage isn't being imposed on anyone, no one is being forced to marry someone of the same sex. What is being imposed is the irrational whims of myth-worshippers like FOTF, those Catholic bishops, the jackass mormon leadership, and other shitheads that want their insupportable prejudices imposed by law on other people. Incidentally, all of their advertising were lies, so people voted for a lie. They couldn't have won the popular vote without lying. The polls before their advertising prove that. Hopefully someday you can have your personal civil rights voted upon, and lose, so that you'll know how evil this was. Judging by your letter, it looks likely that you supported that outcome. Rights should not be subject to vote, it's obscene, and the people who support this garbage are worse than obscene.

--Ron

Laurel sez: In saying that Focus on the Family is "on the wrong side of history" or whatever, I hope you are taking into account that every other anti-gay marriage issue on the ballot Nov. 4 also went the same way (against gay marriage) and that the only states that have gay marriage OR civil unions are those were they were imposed on the citizens of that state by judicial decree, and not with a popular vote.

This is more proof of my contention that religion does more harm than good in the world. Yes, there are some good things, but I think those good things would still happen anyway, and a lot of the bad would not happen without the moral backing of religion.

--Ron

That was partly my point, but without religion they wouldn't have a moral backing like they do now, and couldn't take it as far.

--Ron

<<Some people use religion as an excuse to treat other people like shit. I have no doubt that they'd find some other excuse if they didn't have religion.>>

If people like Maureen Dowd choke because HRC will be the SOS, that'd be great. I think most of her detractors, including the ones here, will find that she does a very competent and insightful job in that new position, that is, if they're willing to be honest about her (most of them haven't been very honest so far).

The main problem I see is that she's such a good person to have in the Senate. I wish she'd replaced Harry Reid.

Most of the Clinton haters have little problem with Reid and other people who have actually caused a lot worse problems than Clinton ever has, and that says all we need to know about their judgment.

--Ron

Then dump Camille Paglia. Save someone who actually tries to improve things, instead of someone with diarrhea-of-the-mouth-syndrome.

--Ron

...is if that means he'll be off the air and have less influence. He constantly unprepared and uninformed, so he'd probably fit in with most of the other senators.

--Ron

Quote from NBC exec: Our relationship with General McCaffrey is based on trust, a basic tenant [sic] of journalism.

Maybe that exec meant the word he used, McCaffrey is simply one of NBC's "tenants."

--Ron

He worked with her at Yale. I wonder what he thinks of her now.

OK, I dragged myself through her column, first time in a while. As is the case in previous attempts to read her verbiage, I learned nothing of use.

1) What is the difference between a "hack" and Camille Paglia? They both write as though their opinion is equivalent to facts. They both tend to self-promote and be self-referential. They both tend to gin up stories with irrelevant anecdotes. They both give undue regard to irrational viewpoints in a strained attempt to be regarded as thought-provoking. At this point, I see no difference, except that most hacks don't get paid to write a twice monthly column at salon.

2) And Ms. P? Quit writing about gay issues. If anyone threatens to set back gay rights, it's you and your constant harping on gay men. You're an apologist for all that's wrong with gay rights and the law. You're an apologist for every myth-book-thumper with an anti-gay opinion but no facts on their side. You are out of touch, you lack relevancy, and most of all, you lack integrity.

3) Is there any right-wing idiot that you won't defend? Your disingenuousness about the reason for anti-Palin views (hint, it has nothing to do with her fake accent, and everything to do with what the words and lack of rationality that she utters) is typical of your crappy writing and reasoning. When's the last time you actually stood up for a gay person, a liberal, or anyone fighting for equal rights? I can't recall you doing so. But, you'll apologize and make excuses for any rotten rights abuser or rights-abusing organization, like the mormon leadership.

4) Stay out of the issues with Mumbai. All you do is cloud the issues and take us further from resolving the very real problems there, and with terrorism in general. As such, you make the world a more dangerous place, because you have no ability to draw attention to the underlying issues. That's typical of you and your writing in general.

5) The Clintons. Project much? Basically anything you say about either one of them is more likely to be a confession of your own soul.

6) I think you confused Valkyrie with Harpy. Please correct in future editions.

7) Do you not see an irony in your critique that language has evolved and insisting that marriage stick with what you see is traditional?

8) Get an editor (don't pick one of your friends, get a professional.

--Ron Robertson