We were planning a wedding last summer before the economy really tanked (and when we both still had jobs). Our budget was also about $8000 and we had a wonderful wedding with many similarities to Melissa's. Our brewer friend made beers for us, we had our wedding and reception at a small art gallery, and we made many of the printable items like the invitations, etc. We had a great time and got off on the right foot for the rest our lives. If you can have a great party on a budget, I think you can also have a great life.

Just because "Doubt" is a serious movie about controversial topics with Big actors doesn't make it intrinsically better than a movie like "The Hangover." For Zacharek to like one and not the other does not make her unworthy of trust as a movie reviewer. Quite the opposite in fact. She realizes that each movie stands on its own merits within the style or genre to which it is suited. "Doubt" may be a more Important movie than "The Hangover," but that doesn't mean it isn't a failure within it's genre. I found it predictable and heavy-handed. Zacharek has proven to me time and again that she is capable of understanding the difference between being entertained and being lectured. "The Hangover" can be entertaining without having to compete in the Oscar derby. "Doubt" can be a thorough bore yet still garner attention because of the cast and subject.

I'm a fan of Eggers and have enjoyed the Sam Mendes movies I've seen. And to a certain extent, I'm probably one of those aimless whiners portrayed in "Away We Go." But the combination of these three things seems to just be a recipe for annoyance. Maybe for typical Salon readers, "Away We Go" is just an exercise in looking in the mirror for 90+ minutes. Not so much fun.

When the kids have an official physical fitness or sports awareness day, they can go down to the poolhall and watch their drunk deatbeat dads play eightball. Lots of lessons learned there too.

Islamic law permits for a man to marry multiple women in most Islamic states, but not in the United States of America. Polygamy is illegal in the US and thus interferes with the religious rights of Muslims in this country. Until this law is changed, Christian Americans have no right to consider Muslims as brothers in the fight against gay marriage. Muslims may or may not be against gay marriage, but they should not be misled into thinking that the Christian majority does not exert political influence over their beliefs as well as over the beliefs of gay Americans. Maybe we do live in a Christian theocracy.

As a conservative, I believe that there is not a single plank in the Republican platform that could support your argument against gay marriage. The right wing of the political spectrum in the US is not the Christian wing and as such, Christian arguments hold no water in considering political or legal action. The right wing of the political spectrum is concerned with protecting individual freedoms against mob rule and with allowing individuals to live a free existence as long as that existence does not interfere with the rights of others. Gay marriage in no way threatens the rights of others and objections to it can only be made from a religious perspective. Last time I checked, we do not live in a theocracy.

...or at least is not a real journalist. Real journalists for the past couple of hundred years have been willing to die for the cause of a free press. Hiding behind a pseudonym is just a cowardly way of dodging criticism. If you truly believe what you write, you would express your ideas as the person you are. Camille Paglia takes alot of criticism on Salon, but at least she is willing to put her name on her opinions. Glenallen Walken, tell us who you are or your opinions are just whispers in the wind. I suspect that you are either a construct of Salon intended to boost clicks or you are more afraid that your fellow conservatives (myself included) will think you are degrading yourself by writing for a left-wing journal.

I didn't take the time to wade through the comments before I posted. My comments are mirrored by earlier posts which Glenn had already taken the time to respond to.

My point, which maybe hasn't been addressed, is that whether left or right, there's always room to feel set upon by the illogical harpies from the opposite side. I was about to claim that liberals seem especially fond of feeling persecuted by strident conservatives, but I think actually it's probably pretty equal. Big media conservatives these days tend to attempt to argue from the moral high ground and so their common ploy is to make liberal stances seem immoral. Hence, you must be a drug user, baby-killer, sexual deviant, etc. But there are plenty of conservatives who can argue logically without resorting to this sort of ad hominem tactic. Liberals are no less guilty of trying to paint all conservatives as heartless, greedy, or hypocritical. As a conservative, I've often been accused of all of these things even though I have rejected most of the policies of the previous administration. But such is the way of argument.

Interestingly, Glenn mentions that his comments tend to seriously deteriorate after the first 60 or 70 comments. I don't think it's specific to your column, Glenn. Once people state their positions, most lack the counterpoint skills to continue meaningful debate (or they just get bored) and so resort to name-calling and mud throwing, which is why I hesitated to even post a comment after reading the column relatively late in the day.