Spent the past three weeks in England. Couldn't tell you the number of times I saw Ms. Boyle make a general fool of herself, with a mixture of over-confident, "I'm the star," attitude, and a particular kind of clown's inability to perceive herself as others may. A bit of dignity, and bit of stand-offishness, a little bit of balance would have taken her where she deserved to go, given her innate talent.

In the 1994 movie "Little Odessa" (with V. Redgrave), an execution is performed after the victim is asked, while on his knees, "Do you believe in God?" Just wondering if this was ever revealed.

Let us think as intelligent adults, shall we? And look into the pounding anvil of a headache Barack will suffer for the next 4 to 8 years, attempting to wend a course through a cultural, economic, and social minefield that is 21st Century America. It is a good thing he is studying Lincoln and FDR as assiduously as he is. They were two of the smartest Presidents we ever had the good fortune to vote into office, smarter than the people around them, and the people they led. And both had to evolve and utilize such political skills to lead an intractable people and gradually, I say, gradually, by increments, induce them to support policies they earlier would have rejected, and in large numbers.

What are the "Facts of Life" our new President must accept? Almost all of the writers so far would acknowledge that power now, real power, is in the hands of the richest few, in the hands of the banks, and this power has been moving their way for several generations, is deeply entrenched, almost subcutaneously omniscient, through media control, and in control of our individual and collective well-being. The nervous and flustered rich can bring down the pillars of our frail temples, our very homes and well-being, in acting to preserve their own interests.

The new President has an awesome responsibility, and is in the most difficult position of any President since Lincoln. He cannot afford to make blunders -- he cannot learn on the job, not this President.

But one word of caution should be added, and one warning. Mr. Obama has awakened a degree of optimism, has awakened a love and hope, and trust, that had better not be treated as mere politcal capital. If he becomes or is revealed to be another tool of the powers that be, what will this mean for the future of our democracy? Will democracy then be dead? I think it will. And this is his greatest, by far his greatest responsibility -- not to have used, and then abused, the democracry that has put him into power, but to have enriched it, to have revived, and thereby to have transmitted to the future, this greatest of ideals.

I am not easily humbled, but I stand humbled before the growing edifice of Sean Penn's work. The thrumming of those nuances still reverberate. Thanks, Sean.

These propositions opposing "Gay Marriage" (in quotes, as though it should be considered distinct and separate from any other kind of marriage) are expressions of the sense of a majority voting in a state at any given time. Once they become the law of a state, however, they become subject to the Constitution of the United States. And that is a whole different ball of wax.

The 9th Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Agreement to form a marriage contract is the question -- not sex. Sex is not addressed one way or the other, in the Constitution, and, hopefully, no longer in state laws or constitutions. Or, if they are, they are also in violation of the Consitution.

Such an agreement is a contract. Can a state or the Federal government limit the formation of contracts? Yes. If a previous contract exists, or one of the parties is underage or mentally incompetent. Otherwise, the formation of a contract is one of those unspoken rights all individuals retain, and these rights may not be abridged.

The 14th Amendment takes care of the question of whether state laws must follow the same restrictions of the Federal.

It does not matter, in Constitutional terms, how large a majority votes in a state to restrict the expression of a right. The Supreme Court recently ruled that states or localities may not act to restrict the possession of hand guns as such regulations would be in violation of the 2nd (?) Amendment.

Some time in the future, a Supreme Court not in such thrall to political considerations must, and will, rule that such state amendments, no matter the number or the popularity of such laws, are in clear violation of inherent rights residing in each and every individual, no matter the race, religion, national origin, or social, political, economic, and sexual orientations.