"I would support a constitutional amendment which says some off-the-wall court decision in one state that recognizes the marriage in one state, like Massachusetts, just to pick a state, cannot go to another state and have it recognized in that state."

I've read that sentence over and over, trying to make sense of it, looking for the noun that goes with the verb, and as best I can tell, he's saying that a court decision "cannot go to another state and have it recognized in that state." Who knew that court decisions were such mobile little devils? Are they, like, the legal equivalent of Roombas, wandering wherever the spirit takes them?

A few more gems like that, and Fred had better hope HE'S not recognized in any state -- at least by editors...

I think he means that he'd support an amendment decreeing that states are not bound by other states' rulings. Which is like supporting an amendment that says states cannot encroach on one another's boundaries. Back off, Massachusetts!! The Brooklyn Bridge is ours!!

Hey Fred!! Mr. Lawyer Guy!! That's already the case! Always has been, always will be.

Amazingly, his second proposition, that federal judges must have their decisions codified by the legislature, is even loopier. What part of "separate branches of government" does he not understand?

And what if states decided to pass "defense of marriage" acts stating that people must marry within, say, their own AGE RANGES?

...they should have to show the footage of Bush saying bin Laden isn't important and he doesn't think about him any more.

Of course, perhaps he's already caught him, and is forcing him to periodically release these tapes decrying Bush's actions and snuggling up to the opposition. The only thing that makes that scenario implausible is that it assumes Bush would have been competent enough to capture him, instead of outsourcing the job in 2001 to Afghan locals whose loyalty was largely with the Taliban.

On a more humorous note, last night on an MSNBC newsbreak during the Dan Abrams show, they were announcing the upcoming bin Laden tape and intoning urgently that "he is now believed to have a brown beard..." All the while they were showing footage of Luciano Pavarotti. Apparently they eat quite well in those caves...

Maher's larger theme -- which went completely uncommented on in this cherry-picking article -- is that a lot of American mothers have an overweening (excuse the expression) sense of entitlement. It's like the world should stop on its axis because they gave birth, which, as Maher -- A COMEDIAN, let's remember -- points out, a dog can do.

Feeling as if you have the right to breastfeed wherever you like is of a piece with the same mentality that gives us people who bring their double-wide strollers into crowded stores on Saturday, park them in the middle of the aisle and browse freely while people struggle to get by them. Or people who bring screaming, unruly kids to a restaurant or theater and let them run amok. And God forbid you should say something. Then you get the self-righteous glares and the charges that you "hate kids" -- never mind that you love kids and have done a damn good job of raising your own. And for those who do "hate kids"? I'm guessing it's overindulgent, smug parents like these that have made them feel that way.

Yes, breastfeeding is natural. So are peeing and pooping. There are bathrooms available for all three of these functions.

Broadsheet needs to stop knee-jerk defending everything women do, no matter how rude, inane, self-indulgent or thoughtless. It lessens the credibility of the whole site, and of women generally,