Old punch line, but if you know the joke, it's funny. I see a parallel with the situation on Gay Marriage amendments in California and elsewhere. Why don't we have these problems in other countries? I suggest it's because we linguistically insist on using the word "marriage" instead of the idea of "domestic partner contract". Marriage is and has been long before the idea of democracy, a ritual created by cultural groups and residing in the groups' mythology on reproduction. Any group of like minded adults can create their own today and marry anyone they want. But who is their benficiary or tax write-off or has de-facto power of attorney? From whom do they need a divorce before they can get a new Civil Union? Ah..that's where it gets interesting. They all have to have a sworn legal contract. To deny that, not marriage specifically, is certainly contrary to the concept of the individual and conservatives should be put to the test on that, not whether gays can get married, presumably in church, though we have some misguieded notion that one get's married in City Hall...not true. I sometimes get the idea that some think that legal gay marriage will mean that gays will have to be allowed to get married in churches that currently don't allow it. If so, it's a false dream, just like religion itself.

Every adult however will benefit if consensual adult domestic partners, irrespective of their sexuality, insist on their individual rights and have it in writing in our nations and in each state's constitution...and fight for that. Leave marriage to the deluded nut jobs with the invisible friends.

I understand the relationship between the church and the African-American community and their histories. That Jackson is a preacher just sort of comes with the territory. Never the less, it is always going to be disturbing to me knowing that the church and its believers are framing leadership in the context of religous figures. To imply or even infer that Jackson was Moses and Obama is a messiah lead to the kind of histrionics that in-turn lead a decline in the secular developement of our society. Even Farrahkan has been quoted as interpreting Obama as if he were something like a prophet of old.

To his credit Obama has remained seperate and distinct despite his proximity to the religious community, I simply hope he can continue to do this inlight of the sensed pressures that are percieved and illuminated in this article. Obama has a lot to juggle and he'll do it much better if not distracted by what's goin' on around his ankles.

I think Bush typifies the short term, profits first, thinking that is so pervasive among those who conveniently support the science that in turn supports their world view. Conversely I think Al Gore typifies a belief in political solutions and wishfull simplicity when it comes to getting programs to achiever. In fact the connection between global warming and CO2 is tenuous, despite all the correlation, the connection is not all that good and the odels are not that good at predicting the real outcomes we see. Also I have not forgotten who selected Lieberman for theri own VP (thereby dooming the dems to defeat even if some choose to blame Ralph Nader) and who was came up with the wildly goofy and ineffective Government Paperwork Reduction Program while VP...as anyone who had to work with the government beaurocracy knew at that time, it was a charade to give upper level management something against which they could gauge their performace and hence their annual bonuses...and it didn't work...at least not so you can tell...and in the case of cap and trade it likewise will be gamed by the greed-heads and become an expensive parasitic beaurocratic colony of career administrators constantly on the lookout for windows of opportunity and longevity, all the while the climate will be more or less doing what it has been doing for these last few zillions of years.

Bush may be as bad as everyone says, but when it comes to CO2 and cap and trade and Kyoto...even a broken watch is right a couple of times a day.

...and ignore people like Mr Sirota here when they say "people want Obama to get all progressive..." Of course, people do want Obama to become all progressive...some, anyhow. And some want him to wear robes and proclaim the 2nd coming, or actually want him to declare himself some commie puppet so the country will finally break down. Lots of reasons supporting catharsis, but it's best kept to a fantasy level, not made manifest in reality.

I sincerely hope Obama continues to ignore the wing-nuts and look for balance and a calm environment in which to make decisions. I was never less enthusiastic about Obama than during the primary campaign the rhetoric got heated and typically as the news cycle wore itself out we'd discover it wasn't so much the candidates but their campaign staff who are rabid for their candidate as only a sports fan can be, or religious fanatic, which is quite a fair characterization and relevant when one has an objective take on the what has become of our news media outlets. I'd prefer a law against provocative politcal speech more than "hate speech". Hate speech could get someone injured but to cause a civil war you need a rabid campaign staff raised on a diet of competitive american sports.