But between too much trust and reverence on the one hand, and too much skepticism on the other, the last eight years should have taught -- but don't seem to have -- that the former is far more dangerous than the latter.

A-fucking-men.

For all those who seem to have missed Civics 101, the government of the United States of America is not based on trust. No, not even if you really really like the person in charge.

I wonder how many reporters have a Word macro that quickly inserts "a veteran of the Clinton administration". It seems like it would be quite the time saver.

Those that opposed Prop 8 and raised $38 million, just wanted a new set of civil rights to be enacted by the state--seems pretty reasonable to me.

No, we don't want "a new set of civil rights", we just want the old rights enforced equally. Which I think is even more reasonable.

In Quebec Canada, no religious body can provide a legal marriage - only whatever religious ceremony they want.

There is also a distinction in the United States between religious marriage and civil marriage, though most people seem to be confused about this. Most priests, etc, obtain the minimal civil authority needed to help the couple complete the legal paperwork necessary, so many people don't realize that the priest's status in the church isn't relevant to the legal recognition of their civil marriage.

Opponents of equal treatment under the law often do their best to encourage this confusion, in order to make strawman arguments about "defending" their religious beliefs and so on.

The next great question

Seems to be why do gays fear the people?

Ask Matthew Shepard.

Like it or not, protecting small groups of citizens from the tyranny of the majority is one of the proper roles of the judiciary in the United States. The wisdom of that whole "checks and balances" thing applies just as much to the actions of a simple majority of voters as it does to other parts of the system.

Yet I'd bet over 90% of [Founding Father] were churchgoers.

You'd lose that bet. And some of them were actually more hostile to religion -- or at least to self-proclaimed religious leaders -- than anything you'll see here. Thomas Jefferson would have trouble even being nominated for high office these days, given what an oppo team could find in his writings.

And I bet that they wouldn't accept gay marriage due to its abnormality - just look at the animal kingdom. What species is it that resembles us in gay equality?

Both same-sex sexuality and same-sex pair-bonding are actually fairly common in many species. Ask any naturalist.

Of course, the usual reaction by bigots to that is to immediately spin on a dime and begin talking about how humans should be "better than animals" ... as they define "better", of course. (No, wait, I forgot, it's God's definition of "better", which just conveniently happens to agree with their own.)

Today's REAL civics lesson, the subversion of the will of the people

What some of you fail to realize is that if you don't like the democracy that is set up, change it, but don't use it to your advantage and then complain when it goes against you.

The way democracy in this country is set up, the judiciary can -- in some cases, for sufficient cause -- block the will of a simple majority of voters. So perhaps you should take your own advice: "If you don't like the democracy that is set up, change it, but don't use it to your advantage and then complain when it goes against you."

And finally, and this is just me being really real, why aren't gay organizations trying to amend the laws regarding civil unions to encompass what is missing in "marriage"?

That "separate but equal" thing? It's been tried. It didn't work.

As many other people have suggested, if the state and federal governments decided -- via whatever appropriate mechanisms -- to say, "Okay, the only thing we legally recognize are 'civil unions', whether they're same-sex or diff-sex. 'Marriage' is a now a religious term, we have nothing to do with that" ... that'd be just fine with me. But why do I have the sneaky suspicion that a lot of oh-so-reasonable straight people would have a problem with that?

(commence internal monologue) So, it comes out that a president-elect wants to make a decision deeply offensive to the people that elected him, those people speak out against it, and the will of the people (one way or the other) is responded to? What is this strange sequence of events?

I'm not sure, but it seems like it must be unconstitutional. Or at least immoral.

Ann Coulter’s Jaw Wired Shut (see sig)

1) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

2) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

3) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

4) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

5) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

[... snort ... bwa-ha-Ha-HA ... mmph ... Damn it, start again! ...]

1) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

2) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

3) I will not laugh at the misfortunes of others.

...

Speaking of a lack of reading comprehension, evidently this part:

George W. Bush is still president

... somehow escaped your laser-like attention to detail and/or your dazzling intellect.

Not to mention this quote of Obama:

"There is only one president at a time."

And this one of Mark Mellman:

"It's not as if people don't know Bush is still president; this is not a mystery to anybody."

Of course, some people do seem a little confused about how this transition thing works:

"Now we have a new president, and he can fill that void."

Perhaps unsurprisingly, though, that was Vin Weber ... a Republican. (But I'll be generous and assume he was speaking in a figurative sense.)