"Their objections to gay marriage center on the way the debate has unfolded."

The way it has unfolded has been completely a construct of the right wing. Stop blaming judges for deciding cases that are placed in front of them. This is really just another attempt by the so-called "party of small government" to use that government to restrict the rights of citizens.

It's all about states rights when the states happen to be red - but it's "overreaching state power" for pesky blue states that actually attempt to assert their own rights.

Gay marriage is inevitable. The alternative is precisely to trivialize marriage. The right wing isn't trying to stop such inevitable trends - trends they recognize as well as anybody else - the right wing is purely interested in making political hay in the mean time. Be careful what positions you callously agitate on behalf of.

Maybe the next question can focus on why conservatives chose to justify - even glorify - hypocrisy?

The inference that mass market gasoline technology continues to beat mass market electric technology is false. There is nothing obvious about this assertion. Rather, gasoline powered cars have enjoyed vast subsidies for a century now. A subsidy of fuel incentives. A subsidy of steel incentives. A subsidy of tax incentives. Remove the artificial - extremely non-market driven - biases and the economics of electric cars will appear significantly more favorable.

I also wonder if the "two car effect" has been estimated properly. Many (most?) American households have multiple cars. These cars tend to fill separate niches in a given household, e.g., a minivan versus a sedan, a pickup versus a midlife Mustang. Even if Americans are wedded to burning profligate gasoline in one vehicle, they may well embrace an electric car for their daily commute.

We bought a Mazda 3 in 2004 instead of a Prius. Why? Because of concerns about the maturity of the battery technology in a hot climate - but more directly because the Toyota dealer wanted to extort $5000 from us on top of the list price. Market economics works - but only if the corporations actually embrace the market. There is nothing less economically neutral than corporate welfare. Any pressure from the new owners of the car companies (the American taxpayers) to encourage the development and marketing of electric cars is only a tiny fraction of the anti-competitive pressures that have held sway for 100 years in favor of Big Oil.

Emerson said, "Language is fossil poetry." Isn't the real problem with creating new languages that a supremely gifted poet (beyond even a Tolkien) would be needed to pull it off?

This is structurally the same conflict as between evolution (natural languages) and intelligent design (invented languages). The real answer is that all design is evolutionary. For Esperanto to be truly successful, it must evolve with the culture. Language emerges from an ongoing conversation, not a static Rosetta Stone.