No one is arguing that a religious institution should be forced to officiate marriages that they do not believe in. That is not what the gay marriage movement is about and what Proposition 8 is trying to stop. This is about gay men and women being able to get legal civil marriages that give them the same legal and social protections that are automatically given to any heterosexual couple, whether they have children or not. It means being able to automatically inherit communal property without being slammed with a huge tax penalty. It's about being able to make medical decisions for your partner if they are unable to do so for themselves. It's about being eligible for health insurance as a spouse, of filing income taxes as a married couple, of survivorship benefits under Social Security... there's a laundry list of benefits that every heterosexual couple gains automatically upon signing a marriage license that even the most legally adept gay couples cannot hope to match.

The laws regarding marriage are not beholden to religious standards no matter how much the right might insist that they do. The Catholic Church prohibits divorce, yet there are millions of Catholics who gained legal divorces but not church annulments. Many of these Catholics have legally remarried and are considered adulterers since the church still only recognizes the first marriage. There are so religious groups that recognize and officiate over plural marriages, even though the law only recognizes the first marriage unless there is a divorce. There are churches that will refuse to officiate over inter religious or interracial marriages, yet these are commonplace nowadays. And yes, there are churches that recognize and are happy to officiate over homosexual marriage ceremonies.

We have never put expanding civil rights to a minority group up to popular vote because in nearly every circumstance, the minority group would lose. Let’s be frank here… if it weren’t for court decisions like Brown vs Board of Ed (forcing desegregation) and President Johnson signing the Civil Rights act (basically negating the laws for a large number of states), we would not be celebrating the election of Obama. Because we left it up to popular vote, and people fell for a campaign that promised the destruction of the American family, the ERA was never passed. And sadly, so many people who were victims of prejudice themselves had voted to curtail the civil rights of another minority.

Less than 10 years ago, the news broadcasts were widely trumpeting that the Democratic party was on the ropes nationally. The Republicans held the presidency and both houses with large enough majorities to pass just about everything Bush wanted. Democrats were losing governorships and a lot of political hay was being made that the governor of California and the mayor of NYC (both about as Democratic-leaning places as you're ever going to find) both were run by Republicans. This was following many years of Democrats being control of at least the legislative branch.

Politics is never stagnant and the party that runs the world today will most likely lose power in a matter of time. So I wouldn't count on the Republicans being out of the picture any time soon - they are masters at reinventing themselves and I don't doubt that in four years, we're going to see a very different party than the beaten one we have today on the political scene.

Admittedly, I'm rather amused by all of those who insisted that Hillary Clinton should not be elected president because people were sick of the "dynasty" of prominet political families. No more Clintons and Bushes, they cried at the tops of their lungs. Well, neither the Bushes nor the Clintons hold a candle to the Kennedys when it comes to political dynasties, so the hypocrasy is rather apparent.

But simply on qualifications when you fairly look at what Caroline Kennedy has accomplished in her life, I find very little little to recommend for her to hold this office. Certainly, she is an extremely intelligent and well educated woman, but she has never shown any interest in the guts of politics before now. She had confined herself to charities and trusts, using her name recognition for causes like public education. She had never expressed any desire to hold office herself and has never publicly endorsed a candidate until this presidential election.

If Ms. Kennedy decided that she wanted to run for office and campaigned for the position, I would be all for it. She would be required to defend her record (or lack thereof) to the voters who would then decide if she was suitable for the postion. But by seeking the position through an appointment, it does show that she still has little desire to engage fully in the political process.

When appointing someone to a political position, the two things that must be avoided is the appearance of appointing one because of political connections and appointing someone who would not be able to get the position with an election. A lot of the arguments some have used in favor of Ms. Kennedy, including her closeness to the new president, are rather unseemly. Hillary Clinton campagined for and fought for this office. It's too important a position to be handed over to someone who has immediate phone access to influencial political figures in the state and no real stomach for a political fight.

And yes, I'll be one of the Clinton supporters that's nursing a bit of a grudge against the Kennedy family over how they threw over Clinton in favor of Obama despite the years of politcal partnership between the Kennedy's and both President and Senator Clinton. To have Caroline Kennedy simply handed Clinton's senatorial seat would be an insult to the outgoing Senator.