JayB

Agreed, but so far the arguments against public policy tolerant of homosexuality put forth by the religious right have been supported by their proponents quite directly by biblical, unambiguously religious references. Big difference. There are many basic moral tenets, that against murder, for example, that may have come into being during pre-history, long before the establishment of religion. It's not hard to imagine that, from the standpoint of natural selection, such morality was a good idea for survival, then later incorporated into various religions later on. Is the prohibition against murder religiously based or not? Both? Hard to say. What can be said is that it's healthy for society to codify this particular prohibition. I would argue that the prohibition against gay marriage is not healthy for society because it violates one of our most basic legal and moral principles; that of equal protection. Condoning it not only denies the right to pursue happinesss that the rest of us enjoy; it also diminishes the rest of us because we allow it to continue. IMHO, of course. So by this logic: Group A consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity religious moral framework. Group B consists of 100,000 people who ground their support for gay marriage in an explicity secular moral framework. The legislation that they support is the same, but their reasons for supporting the legislation are vastly different from one another. Advocacy by group B is acceptable, but advocacy by group A is not?

That's an admirable position to take, but I don't think its an ideal that's ever been achieved in practice. The only thing that will stay the Democrat's hand is the fact that it would have more political costs than benefits for them at this stage in the game.

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making. No it shouldn't Like I said before, separation of church and state is one thing, separation of church and politics is another. I'd find this kind of statement more credible if I heard people on the Left getting all riled up about Bishop Shelby Spong advocating unionization for nannies or whatever.

Word. That is just a fantastic idea. If I didn't hate entire idea behind initiatives/referendums so much I'd suggest that you start gathering signatures. Failing that, those of us who think that this is a good idea should share it with our representatives via a letter or two.

There are plenty of people who claim that their support for things like increasing the minimum wage are rooted in their religious convictions I can pretty much guarantee you that these folks have not come to these conclusions after a dispassionate analysis of the best scholarship and facts, because one never hears them frame the argument in economic terms. They are quite explicit about the fact that they voting in a particular way because of a moral sensibility that for derives from their religious faith. Are they wrong to do so? They are trying to use the state as a means to translate a particular moral perspective into law. Ditto for the stillborn "Latte Tax." I can't recall anyone on the Left criticizing someone who claims a religious inspiration for supporting causes that happen to jive with their agenda. Moral or religious? Sometimes its hard to tell, and I don't think there's anyone who would argue that someone's basic convictions about right or wrong should play no role in shaping their political views or the policies that they support. Separation of church and state is one thing, separation of church and politics is another.

Think I just heard Bush announce that Rumsfeld is out in his addres, 1:05 EST or thereabouts. Looks like Chuck won the betting pool.

If you are serious and this isn't a tongue in cheek post, I think that this kind of religious belief that people don't want sanctioned in America.* I am not reflexively hostile to religion, and most of my friends are religious in some fashion or another - but I think the fact that people make a conscious decision to worship a deity that would inflict collective punishment on a society in which people engage in consenual behavior that's not the least bit harmful to anyone else is disconcerting and/or frightening to a lot of people. I think that's a shame in a lot of ways. In the case of abortion, I understand both sides of the argument, and I think that even though people on opposite sides of the issue may they may passionately disagree with or even dispise each other, I think they at least have a clear understanding of the other sides position. When it comes to gays and gay marriage, I have to admit that I've just kind of been baffled by the antipathy to them. I think the opposition to marriage is due in part to people misunderstanding what gay people want - an extension of existing rules rather than overturning them. But this doesn't really explain why some people find them so threatening. When I was reading some of the articles about Haggard and his church and the beliefs associated with it, I think I started to understand their thinking for the first time. It seemed like they felt threatened by the ever-increasing permissiveness and license that they saw in the society around them, and saw gays in general, and gay men in particular, as the ultimate symbols of a kind of licentious moral free-for-all, and felt as though the state granting legal recognition to gay relationships would mean the state actively endorsing all of the cultural changes that they feel threatened by. I don't agree with this view, and I think that in the long run, this kind of thinking is going to lead folks who engage in it to become increasingly alienated from and marginalized within society. I think this is too bad, because I know a lot of people who have been inspired to become kinder, more forgiving, more generous, and more selfless because of the religious beliefs that they've adopted, and I think that it would be a shame if the people who need some kind of supernatural inspiration to make these things happen never found the church because they were so put off by this aspect of the doctrine. Hopefully the Haggard thing will catalyze some hard thinking about these issues and both the church and gays will come out the better for it. *I am not trying to be personally antagonistic here, just expressing what I think is a common viewpoint. I'm sure that you are a good guy, and I'm glad that you took a moment to share your views honestly.

"Say, did you notice that Daniel Ortega got re-elected in Nicaragua." I was busy reading a recap of Steven Harper's victory in Canada at the time.

Hey I was once mistaken for j_b...even more efficient. Saves on letters and the precious uppercase characters...

"Hi - I post as 'Prole' on cc.com."

Been following that one. Saved by the flotation afforded by his beach-ball sized testicles is my guess.

Hey - sweet. The video linkage is in effect. Works for both GoogleVid and Youtube I assume?

Shhhhhh.

Only in the election that we held in my fourth-grade classroom.

Another cocksucking conservative tool living up to his reputation. So Carl are you trying to insult the guy or hit-on him?

Must only have one recipe. "First combine 156 blister packs worth of pseudoephedrine with..."

Looks like the Sky just broke the record by 5000cfs and counting. Unbelievable. Hopefully the damage won't be as bad as these levels readings make me fear and everyone who needed to evacuate was able to get out in time...

Looks like the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie just hit a record at 30, 400cfs. Water Year Date Gage Height (feet) Stream- flow (cfs) 1961 Feb. 21, 1961 10.50 14,000 1962 Jan. 03, 1962 9.66 11,600 1963 Nov. 19, 1962 13.14 22,800 1964 Nov. 26, 1963 8.90 9,520 1965 Jan. 29, 1965 11.05 15,800 1966 May 06, 1966 7.82 6,860 1967 Dec. 13, 1966 9.41 10,900 1968 Jan. 20, 1968 11.75 18,000 1969 Jan. 05, 1969 12.66 21,200 1970 Apr. 09, 1970 8.33 8,070 1971 Jan. 19, 1971 9.91 12,300 1972 Feb. 28, 1972 10.83 15,100 1973 Dec. 26, 1972 11.28 16,400 1974 Jan. 15, 1974 11.26 16,400 1975 Jan. 18, 1975 13.67 24,900 1976 Dec. 03, 1975 13.37 23,700 1977 Jan. 18, 1977 9.72 11,800 1978 Dec. 02, 1977 14.93 30,200 1979 Nov. 08, 1978 8.84 9,360 1980 Dec. 15, 1979 11.79 18,100 1981 Dec. 26, 1980 12.82 21,700 1982 Jan. 24, 1982 11.93 18,600 Water Year Date Gage Height (feet) Stream- flow (cfs) 1983 Dec. 03, 1982 11.91 18,500 1984 Jan. 24, 1984 12.35 20,000 1985 Jun. 07, 1985 9.42 10,900 1986 Nov. 01, 1985 11.71 17,900 1987 Nov. 23, 1986 14.68 28,900 1988 Dec. 09, 1987 11.31 15,900 1989 Oct. 16, 1988 13.29 23,100 1990 Nov. 09, 1989 13.63 24,400 1991 Nov. 24, 1990 14.97 30,100 1992 Sep. 25, 1992 11,900 1993 Jan. 25, 1993 11.29 15,9008 1994 Jun. 14, 1994 7.26 5,370 1995 Feb. 19, 1995 12.00 18,300 1996 Nov. 29, 1995 14.35 27,400 1997 Mar. 19, 1997 11.22 15,600 1998 Oct. 30, 1997 11.24 15,700 1999 Dec. 29, 1998 11.97 18,200 2000 Dec. 15, 1999 11.99 18,200 2001 Mar. 19, 2001 7.05 5,090 2002 Apr. 14, 2002 10.76 14,200 2003 Jan. 31, 2003 10.76 14,200 2004 Oct. 21, 2003 12.03 18,400 2005 Jan. 18, 2005 13.07 22,200

I think that you are reacting to some of your own preconceptions and seizing an opportunity to do a bit of grandstanding instead of actually reading what I am writing. I am not arguing against gay marriage. I am saying that people who want gays to be able to marry should frame their arguments carefully so that people who are opposed to the idea understand that what they want is a very limited and tightly constructed extension of the existing rules, and any argument that includes something along the lines of "I don't think it's any of the government's business to..." or "Anything that involves consenting adults..." etc tend to give people the wrong idea. The sociocultural evolution of the West has resulted in a state of affairs where one type of consensual relationship has been granted a legal status above all others. Since this didn't come about as the result of any abstract logic or analysis - things just evolved in this manner - it's pretty hard to come up with a logically bulletproof defense of this arrangement. It's something that we've inherited because it worked as part of social evolution. Given that that you can't defend this state of affairs in the way that you defend a geometric proof, trying to argue on behalf of gay marriage using a purely logical proposition isn't going to work, because once you start asking why a consensual relationship between a man and a woman should be given a legal status and a set of privileges that's not granted to a man and two consenting women or two consenting women and a man, it's rather difficult to make a logically consistent argument to the contrary, which is probably why I have never heard one. Instead people veer off into empiricism or practicality, and while I accept these and they are compelling - they fall way short of a logical refutation of the idea. The institution of marriage is an arbitrary construct that we've inherited through social evolution. That's just the way it is. People who support changing the arbitrary rules that we've inherited are making a mistake to claim otherwise, or to base their advocacy on logical arguments because, like it or not, the arguments employed in this fashion do not exclude any relationship between consenting adults. A strategy which emphasizes that the goal is not to overturn this arbitrary arrangement, but simply expand it's scope to include two persons of the same sex gives a much clearer idea of what I think most gay people's objectives are, and helps people understand that no one is talking about substantially modifying the arbitrary rules that we've inherited to include any consensual relationship between adults, nor getting the government out of the role of determining which relationships get this special status. Gay marriage. Great idea. Less suffering, fewer women investing their lives in conflicted closet cases like Haggard, hopefully more stable and healthier relationships amongst gay people - sounds great to me, but anyone that wants to see it happen is going to have to convince lots of people who are uncomfortable with the idea, and bad arguments aren't going to help.

I knew it was getting bad - but this might be record-breaking bad - looks like the flow is approaching the highest levels since they installed the guage. Water Year Date Gage Height (feet) Stream- flow (cfs) 1929 Oct. 09, 1928 10.55 18,800 1930 Feb. 05, 1930 10.44 15,800 1931 Jan. 28, 1931 14.08 35,100 1932 Feb. 26, 1932 20.70 83,300 1933 Nov. 13, 1932 19.50 72,500 1934 Dec. 21, 1933 21.28 88,700 1935 Oct. 24, 1934 18.28 62,400 1936 May 16, 1936 10.91 19,400 1937 Dec. 18, 1936 12.19 25,300 1938 Apr. 18, 1938 16.37 47,200 1939 Jan. 01, 1939 12.92 28,900 1940 Dec. 15, 1939 26,000 1941 Nov. 28, 1940 11.38 21,600 1942 Dec. 02, 1941 11.30 21,100 1943 Nov. 23, 1942 14.08 35,000 1944 Dec. 03, 1943 19.40 71,600 1945 Jan. 07, 1945 16.43 47,400 1946 Oct. 25, 1945 13.95 34,500 1947 Dec. 11, 1946 14.86 40,200 1948 Oct. 19, 1947 15.67 45,300 1949 Nov. 23, 1948 11.66 22,300 1950 Nov. 27, 1949 17.50 56,500 1951 Feb. 10, 1951 18.87 65,600 1952 Oct. 03, 1951 9.58 13,300 1953 Jan. 31, 1953 15.15 40,600 1954 Dec. 09, 1953 12.84 27,500 1955 Feb. 08, 1955 13.45 30,600 1956 Dec. 11, 1955 16.13 46,900 1957 Dec. 10, 1956 17.87 59,100 1958 Jan. 17, 1958 9.81 14,100 1959 Nov. 12, 1958 15.40 42,100 1960 Nov. 23, 1959 20.20 78,800 1961 Jan. 15, 1961 15.11 40,400 1962 Jan. 03, 1962 13.27 29,600 1963 Nov. 20, 1962 19.45 72,000 1964 Jan. 01, 1964 12.21 24,400 1965 Nov. 30, 1964 13.41 30,400 1966 May 06, 1966 11.07 19,100 Water Year Date Gage Height (feet) Stream- flow (cfs) 1967 Dec. 13, 1966 13.10 29,000 1968 Jan. 20, 1968 16.46 49,200 1969 Jan. 05, 1969 15.36 41,900 1970 Jun. 03, 1970 10.52 16,900 1971 Jan. 19, 1971 14.06 34,100 1972 Feb. 28, 1972 15.00 39,700 1973 Dec. 26, 1972 14.61 34,700 1974 Jan. 15, 1974 16.11 46,800 1975 Dec. 21, 1974 15.48 42,600 1976 Dec. 03, 1975 19.85 76,600 1977 Jan. 18, 1977 14.17 34,700 1978 Dec. 02, 1977 18.22 62,800 1979 Nov. 04, 1978 12.28 24,700 1980 Dec. 18, 1979 16.89 52,200 1981 Dec. 26, 1980 21.34 90,100 1982 Jan. 24, 1982 15.11 40,400 1983 Dec. 03, 1982 17.70 58,600 1984 Jan. 04, 1984 15.18 40,800 1985 Jun. 07, 1985 12.09 23,800 1986 Feb. 24, 1986 16.23 47,600 1987 Nov. 23, 1986 19.90 76,500 1988 Dec. 09, 1987 14.43 35,500 1989 Oct. 16, 1988 17.47 56,300 1990 Dec. 04, 1989 17.44 56,100 1991 Nov. 24, 1990 22.49 102,000 1992 Dec. 05, 1991 12.75 27,800 1993 Jan. 25, 1993 13.84 33,700 1994 Mar. 02, 1994 10.05 15,700 1995 Feb. 19, 1995 15.54 44,100 1996 Nov. 29, 1995 20.24 80,400 1997 Mar. 19, 1997 16.18 44,900 1998 Oct. 30, 1997 16.98 50,400 1999 Dec. 29, 1998 18.72 63,800 2000 Dec. 15, 1999 15.88 42,900 2001 Oct. 01, 2000 11.05 17,600 2002 Jan. 08, 2002 16.37 46,100 2003 Jan. 26, 2003 16.38 48,700 2004 Oct. 20, 2003 20.73 86,500 2005 Jan. 18, 2005 19.55 74,600

Wow. Saw that the Sky broke 100-freaking-thousand CFS today. Insane. I think the highest flow on record is 118K, so it must have come close to hitting that. Insane.

Uh...we're not discussing polygamy. That is a completely different subject with different social and legal implications. We also not discussing man-on-dog marriage, just in case that should come up. I think you'll find over time that most Americans will support gay marriage, as they did interracial marriage. The arguments against the latter were nearly identical. As for whether a technical majority do now, if not, it is very close, and certainly growing. Wow - seems like you really missed the point, which was probably on purpose. I said consenting adults. I wasn't comparing gay marriage to polygamy. There are people who base their arguments for gay marriage under the premise that the government has no right to privilege one type of relationship between consenting adults over another. This is most often the logic behind the "right to marry whomever they choose" argument. This is a very strange argument to use for a couple of reasons. Even if gay marriage is the law of the land, there will still be a legal and social consensus behind granting the government the power to restrict the legal privileges of marriage to certain, very tightly defined arrangements, and the government will therefore still be in the business of deciding what kind of consensual relationships amongst adults that it wants to grant legal recognition to. This is something far different than the government being entirely agnostic on this matter, so the government will still be translating a set of arbitrary "values" and norms into law on this realm. This set of values will still say a lot about what kind of consensual relationships between adults that society thinks are most valuable and legitimate. What gay people are asking for is not for the government to completely remove itself from the role of determining which consensual relationships between adults get legal sanction, what they are asking for is for the government to grant same sex-unions of two people the same legal status that they currently extend to male-female unions involving two people. This is something entirely different than the government playing no role whatsoever in the matter and serving as a rubber stamp for any domestic arrangement that consenting adults care to organize themselves into. A better argument for gay marriage should frame the debate not in terms of changing the rules, or government getting out of the rule-making business in this arena all together, but extending the current set of rules so that it the existing law that arbitrarily privileges unions of two people over all other arrangements also includes two people of the same sex.

One of the things that I like about the Catholic Church is that they have no problem saying "Sorry - that actually isn't a valid interpretation of the Bible." This is not because I think that they are correct, but it least it corrals irrationality into channels defined by tradition, which puts a brake or two on the proliferation of Branch Dividians, etc.

Actually, I don't subscribe to any of your assertions. And your example of gun control, which I personally couldn't give a damn about, is dated. The Democrats in general have largely abandoned that as an issue out of shear necessity. Your confuse the actual definition of terms like "moral values" with its connotative meaning in the public sphere. When that term is used in public, political speech, it connotes a specific agenda put forth by the religious right. I object to intrusions on privacy and personal choice from the left as well. As conservatives in power have become more radical, however, they are fewer and farther between these days. Simply put, I believe government should be neutral regarding religion, as stated in the constitution. I believe that everyone should have an equal right to marry whom they choose. I believe that the government should stay out of our private lives and personal choices. The religious right does not believe these things, and therein lies my objection. And BTW, for those who are logically challenged, stating that non-christians object to a religious right agenda does not imply anything at all about christians who do not fall into that category. Dated or not, gun control is an issue that has moral/conviction-based dimensions for both sides. As far as "the equal right to marry whomever they choose," is concerned - as someone else said that is a fairly vast oversimplification that virtually no one would support in practice. While everyone would restrict the right to marry to consenting adults, no one is out there campaigning for a complete libertarian free for all. I think that all gay people want is for the government to extend the rights that are associated with a male-female union consisting of two persons to be extended to legal unions of any two consenting adults. Ask many of them whether or not they'd like to include polygamy in the realm of legal relationships that they'd like to have elevated to the same status, and they'd probably tell you that they are actually fine with the government denying groups of 3, 4, 5, 6, or 26 consenting adults the marital rights that they want for themselves. There are a bunch of practical reasons for this, but I would imagine that a significant number of gay couples who want the right to marry would also express some moral reservations about the government sanctioning martial arrangements like those that prevail in Colorado City, Arizona.