Actually, I have spoken out in favor of legal recognition of some sort for polygamous relationships. (Which BTW does not make me in favor of statutory rape, any more than supporting GLBT rights means I'm in favor of pedophilia.)

I'm going to call Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Dean right now and tell them that they can't ever win in Congress as long as gay marriage is out there.

[grin] Don't forget to call Barney Frank.

What REALLY matters here is your "opinion." YOU are therefor more important than your fellow 230 million Americans.

Actually, the point is that each of us are, legally, exactly as important as each of our fellow 300 million Americans.

Here's a bright idea, how about making a big stink about abortion on demand rights or other issues that devide rather than bring us together.

How would insisting on treating some people differently than other people bring us together?

Hello, president McCain.

-- AnOptomist

That's quite the ironic name you've got there.

The Court is composed of six out of seven Republican-appointed judges. [Emphasis added]

Heh, gotta love that.

I said the following over in the War Room, and I'll say it again here:

[F]or those of you boo-hooing over November, grow a friggin' spine already. If you can't manage to stand up and say "equal treatment under the law" without stuttering, then for crissake just sit down and shut up while the rest of us handle it.

But then, I live in Massachusetts, where the sky still hasn't fallen. When the rest of you folks want to join us (and Canada and Spain and South Africa and now California) in the 21st century, we'll be here to welcome you.

So we have had gay marriage here, in Massachusetts, for a couple of years now, and not only has the sky not fallen, the opposition (most of which came from OUT of STATE) just dried up and floated away.

AND there has been a rise in heterosexual marriages (ok, no stats on this one but I know at least 3 couples personally who go married AFTER gay marriage was legalized for that very reason.)

There aren't any hets in my "heterosexual" marriage-to-be, but we certainly wouldn't be tying the knot if we didn't live in Massachusetts.

Guess what? The "activist judges" this time were ... wait for it ... Republicans. The California Supreme Court has 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat.

(And for those of you boo-hooing over November, grow a friggin' spine already. If you can't manage to say to stand up and say "equal treatment under the law" without stuttering, then for crissake just sit down and shut up while the rest of us handle it.)

Relax.

1) The CA Supreme Court is 6-1 Republican. So even if they do the right thing, it'll be mostly Republican "activist judges".

2) It's California.

3) Same-sex marriages have had legal recognition in Massachusetts and the sky hasn't fallen. Sure it's still an irrational issue for a lot of people, but it's not as hot-button as it used to be.

4) Not that I have any say in the timing, but I wouldn't be inclined to put off an effort to finally bring equal treatment under the law to California just because some folks are a little politically faint-hearted.

Isn't he going to cure cancer? Or is he saving that for his second term?

That you can talk until your liberal brie munching head explodes. It won't make any difference to an avowed enemy who not only isn't interested, but isn't reliable and openly refuses to comply.

Well, okay, that might explain why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might not want to talk to Bush, but why wouldn't President Obama be willing to talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

The Iraqi government, Johnson says, has been doing a poor job of drawing investors and a poor job of distributing the resources it does have to improve the life of average Iraqis.

Riiight. I can't imagine why it'd be hard to draw investors to an occupied country with a half-rebuilt infrastructure.

Of course, the very lucrative mercenary market has already been cornered ...

Prescott Bush was also alleged to have been involved in the "Business Plot", a conspiracy -- according to General Smedley Butler -- to overthrow the presidency of FDR.

The will of the people doesn't seem to be a concern of this family.

I think the most likely "this doesn't count" approach for the Clinton campaign -- unless they just ignore it -- will be to say that the union leadership is "out of touch with the hard-working membership".

(Which for all I know may be true, but I suspect that the truth or falsity of it won't matter.)

From the strategy that Van Riper showed to be so successful, we understand a little better why the "Philipino Monkey" incident with the small Iranian speedboats unnerved the Pentagon so much.

That was my thought at the time. You can bet your bippy that someone in the Iranian military was aware of the Gen. Riper incident and thought it'd be fun to play some head games. Which, of course, they wouldn't have done if the Pentagon had played out some possible responses to the Riper's tactics instead of saying "No, no, no, you're not allowed to do that."

Why is all this vitriol at Obama coming out?

Some of it is understandable disappointment after a long, hard effort.

Some of it is McCain supporters (and just random troll-kiddies) stirring shit up.

It'll be Edwards endorsing Obama tonight, and Gore endorsing him next Wednesday.

I'll bet all of my pocket change on it.

... I thought the John and Elizabeth Edwards had publicly stated that they wouldn't endorse either Clinton or Obama. Or was that just for the lead-up to the NC primary?