As a gay man, I'm often frustrated by the self-victimization I see in gay culture. You'd think we were living in the days of the Spanish Inquisition or Victorian England. The Seattle underground paper, The Stranger, once ran a special issue geared towards college students joining the city. It said to gays: don't bitch; before you shoot your mouth off, remember you're living in the kind of city gay men and women throughout history would have given anything to inhabit.

Yes of course gay men and women should have the right to marry. I believe that day will come. But we live in a great time, and we have much, much more freedom than anyone would have ever thought possible. We are largely integrated in society, gay and lesbian teens take each other to the prom, and there are positive images all over the place for the young and not-so-young. We've come a long way.

I appreciate your opitimistic take on where we stand in the culture at large.

I remember William F. Buckley, and the National Review by extention, calling the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, and agreeing that it should be overturned. Conservatives in general (which is not necessarily the same thing as saying "Republicans in general") are for the government staying out of people's private lives.

I remember when political correctness really did silence discussion and censor output on college campuses. I remember the national media following suit for a while.

But that was a long while ago. There are still pockets of the country where people are obsessed with every politically correct topic. The Pacific Northwest comes to mind. If the show was about some Middle American moving to Seattle and dealing with the culture shock, there might be some mileage in the set-up, but unless the show is culture-specific it seems like a strained premise. Most people eat however the want, amd don't worry about health or eco benefits. Lots of people drive cars that that aren't hybrids, and they don't feel the least guilty about it. So the target of the show's satire is more than a little off.

As far as the King of the Hill conversation goes, I liked the show for giving us a Texas I recognize, and making good jokes about it. Probably it should have been cancelled years ago. The writers ran out of ideas and Hank became a kind of blowhard, freaking out over anything Bobby did that was a little unorthodox. Good while it lasted, but definately over.

Posted too quickly.

I see no more logic or clearheaded thinking in her writing than his. They're both too young to step out of their ideological conditioning and see the world as it is.

Thanks for the common sense. I'm gay, I don't remotely support Prop 8, but you're pretty much right. Not sure why Salon didn't balance this article with a strong "Let's get out there and right this wrong" editorial.

I say pretty much, because I'm fairly sure there are some ammendments that would not be judged constitutional. If somehow a proposition was passed that reinforced segregation, my guess is that a judicial review would say it violates the already existing state and national constitutions. Of course, that's a wildly improbable scenario. But as there are basic Constitutional rights which ammendments can't overturn, there must be some cases in which a state supreme court could overturn an ammendment.

I come from a blended family but this wasn't an issue for us, so I don't know how disciplining step kids fits into the equation. My dad has a daughter from his first marriage, but she always lived with her mom. My mom had a son from her first marriage, but the husband was pretty close to evil (not bashing men here; this guy was really a piece of work) and my dad provided the first loving father figure for my brother, and in fact legally adopted him. When my brother met his birth-father years later, he told the man "I'll call you by your first name. My dad is the one who raised me." So there were no boundery issues about "you can't tell me what to do!"

But how do step parents deal with children living in their house? Should only the blood relation make rules? Is it possible for a step-parent to discipline? Should it be avoided? Or will taking on a full parental role including discipline work to strengthen the family?

Probably my quetion has already been answered, but to prevent my going through all the letters: does a letter have to be abusive towards a fellow letter writer? When I noticed racist, sexist letters, they strike me as abusive. Is it all right to flag them?

You mention the former, but provide no judgement or outrage for either.

Personally, I don't encounter any conversations about Michelle's clothing except here. The news sources I look to don't bother with it, and my friends and collegues never mention it. If you choose to read magazines and web sites that pay more attention to hemlines than economic plans, it sounds like your obsession more than the national media's.