Theman1

Deep1

Fifthelement25

Dpalm5

Wpalm5

200810200342
Morning in America.

1 COMMENT

  4. Good thing Superman has got President Obama’s back. In case of aliens from the sky, the center of the Earth, or 20,000 leagues under the sea.

    (I assume its natural for real, live Kryptonians to look glazed and shiny and as if they might actually be only an inanimate statue, while hovering three feet off the ground, right?)

  6. The invocation of TEAM AMERICA reminds me that we will soon be seeing Obama skewered by the South Park bunch.

    Part of me is bored to tears with SP; the other part is curious to see how they’ll try to satirize O while trying to keep up the image (if not the reality) of their anti-racism.

  7. @gene- Simple, they’ll satirize his policies, his discourse, his cult of personality, and other things that have nothing to do with his race. Of course, if they want to mock white people for treating him like a “magic Negro”, they’ll have to discuss it, but they can do that without being racist.

  11. Not to be corny, but I’m pretty choked up about this and my faith in humanity is a little bit restored by the election results. Yeahyeah, I wanted Hillary -but the odds Obama beat were even greater and more impressive… Man, it’s a beautiful day!

  14. “Not to be corny, but I’m pretty choked up about this and my faith in humanity is a little bit restored by the election results.”

    Not to be corny either, but I’m a little disappointed to hear comments like this … as if to imply that a McCain victory would have justified having no faith in humanity. It’s long past the time for both parties — and everyone in America — to get past this “They” and “Them” mentality.

  15. I’m a sarcastic cynic, and Obama was like fifth on my list of who I wanted to be president a year ago, but every time I stop to think about what happened yesterday, I start to cry with joy. Even if you don’t agree with his politics, even if you think he’s too inexperienced… any good-spirited person has got to agree that something good has just happened.

  16. I’m partially crediting the tv series “24” in selling American voters the idea of a great, courageous African-American president in Dennis Haysbert’s Palmer character (esp. going against all them evil old WASP politicos).

    I guess the FOX Network’s programming wasn’t on the same page as their FOX NEWS division!

  17. “Part of me is bored to tears with SP; the other part is curious to see how they’ll try to satirize O while trying to keep up the image (if not the reality) of their anti-racism.”

    And there it is….Obama’s innoculation against the next four years of both satirazation and substantive disagreement by the True Believers.

  18. ed: Prez Palmer not withstanding, many neo-cons luv luv luv that show… ends justifying the means against our enemies and all that, and have even been known to reference in serious policy discussions. So I would probably choose something like the Simpsons to differentiate between the network and the news divisions :).

    And Oliver, yes, that is the big fat buzzkill to which I refer. Sigh.

  19. “California’s a big fat buzzkill”

    “you mean prop 8? Yeah, you are right.”

    Not just California. Take a look at these extremely disappointing results at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/
    Arizona Proposition 102: Ban on Gay Marriage: 56% Yes
    Arkansas Initiative 1: Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children: 57% Yes
    California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage: 52% Yes
    Florida Amendment 2: Ban on Gay Marriage: 62% Yes

    It may be morning in America for some, but it’s midnight for others. I don’t believe it was a vote for Obama as much as it was a vote against GWB & McCain & current economic conditions.

    As someone who is neither liberal nor conservative, I too would like everyone to get past the idea that “they” and “them” are wrong, biased, lying, stupid, evil, racist, unpatriotic, crazy, etc.

  20. The views, economic and social, of political moderates converge toward the center because moderates are pragmatic. Pragmatists realize that principles can conflict and still be rational, and that opposing viewpoints might both have elements of truth.

    IMO, Obama’s victory is good for America internationally because it sends a signal that there are Americans who realize that foreigners have viewpoints and principles that are legitimate and that they don’t exist merely to serve America’s interests. Electing McCain, an old angry white man, to succeed Bush, after McCain conducted a campaign that deliberately appealed to racist beliefs and other prejudices, would have sent the opposite message.

    Republicans aren’t necessarily part of the Republican base, but that base, as represented by Sarah Palin, has acquired a woeful public image.

    SRS

  21. “Even if you don’t agree with his politics, even if you think he’s too inexperienced… any good-spirited person has got to agree that something good has just happened.”

    I *do* agree that our election of a black man to the office of President is not only a good thing, but a GREAT thing (more evidence of American exceptionalism)…but at the same time, I can’t help but wonder if the same level of emoting and swooning would be applied to, say, Republican Michael Steel if he were the first black President. Using the precedent of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, I suspect not.

  22. If Michael Steel and Clarence Thomas had exhibited the kind of open-mindedness and “big tent’ philosophy that Obama has espoused, they they would, yes. Given that Thomas never speaks in public, it’s unlikely.

    As for Prop. 8…as much as I respect the dreams and aspirations of my gay comrades, it is too soon for gay marriage, just as it was too soon for the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70s. Hanging so much on one single equal rights issue has played right into the hands of social conservatives.

  23. “If Michael Steel and Clarence Thomas had exhibited the kind of open-mindedness and “big tent’ philosophy that Obama has espoused, they they would, yes.”

    So, in other words, our ebulation isn’t so much for a black man as it is a properly liberal black man. Wow…that’s some “big tent” you’ve got there, Heidi.

  24. “As for Prop. 8…as much as I respect the dreams and aspirations of my gay comrades, it is too soon for gay marriage…”

    Yoiks! You better duck, Heidi…a righteous shit-storm may be heading your way!

  26. Well… this election deserves at least two books.
    Close elections which will go to recounts. (Minnesota’s senate seat, Omaha’s electoral vote)
    Massive volunteer and organization (I spent the last three days of the campaign volunteering at Obama NYC HQ, and when we let the phone bankers leave at Nine, volunteers in California were still calling voters in Alaska.)

    As a former Democrat from Nebraska, I understand pragmatism. We have a one-house nonpartisan legislature because voters felt it saved money and was efficient.

    Want to sell Gay Marriage to pragmatics/purple voters/independents?
    1) It promotes stability and monogamy among couples.
    2) It promotes stability and psychological health for children. (Two parents are generally better than one.)
    3) Weddings are an economic engine. Home ownership even moreso. (A new house requires appliances, which are big-ticket items.)
    4) Generally, GBLT individuals have more desireable demographics than heterosexuals. (Education, income)
    5) If two people love each other so much that they wish to spend a lifetime together, then government should encourage it.

    Until McCain’s metamorphosis after the Republic Convention, I was extremely pleased with how this election was proceeding. Last night, I was worried about the American Spirit if Obama happened to lose. How many new voters would be disillusioned? How much anger would erupt if people thought this election was stolen?

    Notice how hardly anyone is talking about voter fraud and polling mistakes today? There were hourly reports popping up on Google News yesterday. Both sides had teams ready to mobilize litigation. Today? People are obtimistic. The New York Times sold out citywide before 8 AM. For once in recent history, people will remember where they were and how they felt on that day not because of a tragedy, but because something wonderful happened. And that, in and of itself, is cause for celebration.

    Of course, that euphoria may be short lived if Senator Stevens of Alaska gets kicked out of the Senate. Why? Because the Governor of Alaska (yes, HER) gets to pick his replacement. “Mirror mirror on the wall…”

  27. >>Of course, that euphoria may be short lived if Senator Stevens of Alaska gets kicked out of the Senate. Why? Because the Governor of Alaska (yes, HER) gets to pick his replacement. “Mirror mirror on the wall…” >>

    Alaskan law would reportedly require a special election to fill the vacancy, should Stevens resign or be booted out.

  29. “Alaskan law would reportedly require a special election to fill the vacancy, should Stevens resign or be booted out.”

    According to a talking head last night, Stevens by law, as a convicted criminal, cannot legally serve in the U.S. Senate…so he *will* be replaced through a special election to be held in (I think) 90 days, and not appointed by Palin and her Magic Mirror.

  30. “…it is too soon for gay marriage, just as it was too soon for the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70s.”

    *deep breath*

    I know this is a comics blog. At the risk of proving Mark Engblom right and making exactly no friends:

    1. Is it still too soon for the still unpassed, yearly reintroduced, nearly forgotten ERA, three decades later? I am reading your statement as implying that at some future date it might not be too soon; please name the date at which ensured equal treatment of women will be timely. If I misunderstand your statement, however, and you are, rather, implying that the time for it has passed because we came a long way baby without it, please name the past date at which you feel the time *was* right to grant the equal treatment that women managed to obtain without the benefit of legislation.

    2. As for teh gayz: are you saying it is too soon for homosexuals to receive equal treatment under the law? Or that it is not the best time to ask for rights, as there are many other huge things at stake that do not benefit from having something so divisive launched into them? Or are you saying that it is merely too soon to expect the Majority to benevolently grant these civil rights to the Minority? If you mean this third option, I sadly agree with you: civil rights came slowly and in halting steps to other groups in the past, and maybe homosexuals need to work on their equivalent of being allowed to sit where they want on a bus before they aspire to wrest the civil benefits of so-deemed “marriage” from their government.

    What is this equivalent, however? I ask honestly, because I don’t know how to work for our next, new stepwise rights at this point. I can already use the same potty as a heterosexual; I already can rent the same apartments and hold the same jobs as a heterosexual (though I “pass” and live in an urban area). I eat in straights’ restaurants, shop in their comic book shops (Hi Comicazi of Somerville! Thanks for selling comics to queers!), ride their busses, and vote in their elections. I could run for their public offices. I am allowed to freely associate both with other homosexuals and with heterosexuals. If I break the law, I am treated to the same criminal justice system as a straight person. I can get the same insurance coverage as a heterosexual. What should I ask for next, to prep the path for the “civil benefits of marriage” aspect of equal treatment under the law?

    I feel that you are not an anti-gay-person or anti-woman lady, and the completely intentional snark in the above is intended to target the *situation,* not *you*. Just to be clear. Today is both elating and frustrating for me, as I am sure it is for many people, and I am venting in this totally inappropriate venue. Ahem. Yes. Go about your business.

  31. Nope, Mark, i DIDN’T say a liberal black politician. I said am OPEN MINDED and BIG TENT black politician. The fact that you equate these somewhat POSITIVE personality traits to LIBERALISM shows me why the right wing partisan base is off muttering in its cave today.

    Like I said, maybe Clarence Thomas is an open-minded person who disagrees with me. Before Karl Rove, that was completely possible. Thomas, like most Supreme Court Justices except Scalia, isn’t much given to public speaking so he isn’t much of a uniter. (Scalia is NOT open-minded and big tent, from what I can tell.)

    I don’t know much about Michael Steel, so maybe he’s an inspiring speaker who brings people together like Obama does.

    Before the election, I thought John McCain was an admirable, decent man whom I would have supported in other circumstances. He ran a horrible, negative campaign and picked a ruthless hillbilly as his running mate. Both choices were bad ones.

    Over on one rabid right winger’s blog commenters are having a field day mocking with a garage door sign that says “Hope beats Hate.” BY doing do, are they saying that hate is a better emotion than hope? Boy, that us one train I want to get on!

    Ronald Reagan would have swiftly seen the error in this position. “Morning in America” is from a REAGAN ad. Even Fox news is jumping on the Obama bandwagon for the day. We have a tough road ahead of us, and partisanship isn’t going to get us far.

  32. “We have a tough road ahead of us, and partisanship isn’t going to get us far.”

    With both houses of Congress and the presidency, I’m thinking “partisanship” probably isn’t going to be much of an impediment to the Liberal Happy Times project. Sorry, you guys won’t have that as an excuse anymore.

    Also, I love your “open minded” and “big tent” attitude toward the “ruthless hillbilly”. With that kind of kind hearted, bipartisan spirit, is there NOTHING we cannot accomplish? Please.

  33. Knowing you, Heidi, I certainly believe you respect the “dreams and aspirations” of your gay comrades. But I don’t understand why you think it’s too early for gay marriage–especially in California. Massachusetts has had gay marriage for years. Why do you think it’s too early to have it elsewhere?

    Of course, marriage for all is obviously too SOMETHING, since the Prop. 8 ban on it here in California passed.

    If you buy the “too early” theory, it wasn’t only the ’70s that seem to have been too early for the ERA–it seems to have been the ’80s, too. The extensions took it up to 1982, when it failed. But I really don’t think it was too early for the ERA then, and it’s way past time now. Especially when you consider that it was introduced in the 1920s.

    It’s never too early to treat all human beings as such.

    So women and gays are still second-class humans most everywhere, both legally and socially.

    The only way I can begin to understand this is when I try to see it through the eyes of my own bigotry. I’m bigoted against stupid people. I try to cut them some slack, but it’s really, really difficult for me–especially when my life is adversely affected by them. When I try to take that difficulty and apply it to thinking about women and gays, I can just start to see how the people bigoted against those groups can’t get past their bigotry.

    Well, at least we now have Obama. I don’t care what the color of his skin may be (or his gender or sexual preference). I’m just so, so grateful that he seems to be smart! Oops, there I go again–my bigotry is showing.

  34. Wow, this is only the fifth or sixth time I’ve seen someone refer to all of these fictional black presidents, except all those other stories included, like, reporting to put them in context.

  35. “Yeah, because the Democrats won. Case closed.”

    No, Mark, because the winner won by such a large margin that it could not possibly be the result of any sort of fraud or shenanigans, just as only a fool would look at Reagan’s election in 1980 or Clinton’s in 1992 and think it was the result of dirty tricks. But you already knew that, and just wanted to play the poor widdle oppressed rightwinger, didn’t you?

  37. I watched McCain’s concession speech with interest. He had the look of a man who had just been liberated, rather than defeated.

    I do agree that the fact that Americans have finally elected an African-American as President is, in an of itself, a good thing, not only benefiting U.S. cred abroad but also giving an instance of hope to people whose lives have been mostly hopeless.

    I was particularly happy to see the pointed repudiation of neo-conservatism as embodied by the current GOP leadership. Maybe now the better Republicans can come in and clean house. Although I rather doubt this will happen quickly or easily.

    That said, given the situation this government faces I rather suspect the honeymoon will be over sooner rather than later, and that Obama is going to be a huge disappointment for those expecting him to end the Terror War, or roll back the police state, or fix the economy.

    But we’ll see.

  38. “…not only benefiting U.S. cred abroad but also giving an instance of hope to people whose lives have been mostly hopeless.”

    Yeah, like helping Peggy Joseph with her gas and mortgage payments:

  39. Okay, I’ve come back around from the snark that possessed me, and Heidi, I would like to apologize for bringing my flaming into your house.

    Flaming. See what I did there?

  40. Justice Thomas is a really bad precedent for President-Elect Obama.

    1. Plenty of people were super-fired up when Thomas was initially named, before things got weird.
    2. Thomas was the second guy, not the first. Thurgood Marshall was a titanic figure of the 20th Century, and for years the only justice most people could name.
    3. An elected office brings with it a different meaning than being appointed and approved.
    4. All apologies to the value system of William Howard Taft, but being named to the Supreme Court is not becoming President of the United States.

    Also: gay marriage yesterday. Or: marriage yesterday. An issue so stupid it can only be discussed through the use of a term that is ridiculous. Let’s all get gay married!

  41. By #3, I mean that it’s amazing that we have a President-Elect of color, and it’s amazing he seems to be a person of certain qualities (as Chris Rock put it, he wouldn’t be excited about Flavor Flav running), and it’s amazing that people in certain places voted for him, even if, as The Onion points out, that certainly has a pathetic side to it. I mean, it’s not like the bad stuff goes away, but INDIANA VOTED FOR AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN FOR PRESIDENT. It made me want to cry.

    It’s not solely about people reaching a high position and the appropriate applause they should receive for said achievement. It’s a difficult, human event with multiple, worthy perspectives. Sheesh.

  42. Tom–referring to your blog– I’m glad that your political prognosticating was so inaccurate.

    Unless you were being deliberately provocative.

    Which, I suppose, is possible.

  43. Mark, it’s hard to be the one guy representing the losing side on this thread. Thanks for keeping us in the real world. I think even big Obama supporters such as myself agree that he can fuck it up big time. Maybe he will. But even Condi was choked up today. We’ll be back to the shit economy, endless wars, melting ice caps and no health care tomorrow. Today it’s OBAMA TIME!

  45. “Plenty of people were super-fired up when Thomas was initially named, before things got weird.”

    Translation: “Before they found out how conservative Thomas was” . Recalling the words of NOW’s Florence Kennedy, “We’re going to ‘bork’ him”…which Thomas himself later characterized as “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves”.

  46. Let me make it clear, I’m as happy as anyone else to see a black man elected President of the United States. However, I can completely separate my genuine joy over such a gigantic milestone and my total disagreement with the man’s political philosophy and plans for the country. One can have one without the other.

  47. You are totally fired as my translator.

    No, the people around me didn’t get less fired up because he was a conservative. It was clear he was conservative from the very beginning. He was the Bork replacement! His conservative identity was a given. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. They were fired up because he was a relatively young African-American and actually because he was an African-American conservative, which isn’t a person you saw in politics a whole lot. They became less fired up when his hearings got weird and to a lesser extent that he wasn’t more impressive when more of his record was exposed and when he spoke on his own behalf.

    I wasn’t hanging out with Florence Kennedy, and the president of NOW barely speaks for anyone, and plenty of people like Ralph Nader are critical of President-Elect Obama. So what? For the record, I thought Bork got screwed, but I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.

    People were more thrilled about Colin Powell and Condi Rice than they were about Warren Christopher and Stephen Hadley, and so on. That seems really clear to me. But none of them are the president-elect of the US and none of them were elected by that many millions of people or whatever. The presidency is special.

  48. As I put in a later posting, I’m just happy to the point of tears to have a president who believes in habeas corpus, the cornerstone of democracy for about 700 years or so. I think a lot of Americans who were GOP their whole lives are.

  50. “As for Prop. 8…as much as I respect the dreams and aspirations of my gay comrades, it is too soon for gay marriage, just as it was too soon for the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70s. Hanging so much on one single equal rights issue has played right into the hands of social conservatives.”

    Note the following descriptions…

    Arizona Proposition 102: This measure would amend the state constitution so that only a union between one man and one woman would be valid or recognized as a marriage in the state.

    Arkansas Initiative 1: This measure would prohibit unmarried “sexual partner[s]” from adopting children or from serving as foster parents.

    California Proposition 8: This measure would amend the state constitution to specify that only marriages between one man and one woman would be recognized as valid in the state.

    Florida Amendment 2: This measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

    These are not measures designed by people who think it’s time for gay marriage, but by those who think it’s never time for gay marriage.

  51. Time for Gay Marriage?
    Black man in the White House?
    Hell! Shouldn’t we be voting for a transgendered Asian at this point?
    Conservatism is bunk.

  53. I’ll just make one note about being the time or too early for gay marriage thing (and I was feeding returns to a news team on a gblt radio station until 4am, so I know alllll about the measures besides California’s)… it’s valid to argue that a large percentage of Americans aren’t ready for gay marriage and therefore the issue can be leveraged by conservatives in destructive ways, as happened in 2004 and likely cost the presidency. But it’s now legal–forever and irretrievably, save the unlikely federal DOMA–in Massachusetts. And last night, Connecticut shot down a ballot measure to hold a constitutional convention to consider taking away the legal right they just granted to gays to marry, which means it’s almost certainly permanently legal there too. And in California, *people are already married*, with certificates and rings and photos and dried flowers and everything. And that’s why Prop. 8 was so devastating.

  54. “I’m just happy to the point of tears to have a president who believes in habeas corpus…”

    So, will President Obama swing wide the jail cells of Guantanamo on Jan. 21st? I don’t recall him saying that at any point.

    Question: Do any of the Obama campaign’s strong-arm tactics (such as tossing “hostile” reporters from the campaign’s airplane) give you any First Amendment concerns? Even just a whiff?

  55. “Question: Do any of the Obama campaign’s strong-arm tactics (such as tossing “hostile” reporters from the campaign’s airplane) give you any First Amendment concerns? Even just a whiff?”

    Mark, did John McCain throwing Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd off of the campaign’s airplane give you any First Amendment concerns? Even just a whiff? Of course it didn’t. IOKIYAR.

  58. “Question: Do any of the Obama campaign’s strong-arm tactics (such as tossing “hostile” reporters from the campaign’s airplane) give you any First Amendment concerns? Even just a whiff?”

    Palin commented during a 10/31 radio interview that negative media coverage of her campaign’s attacks on Obama (questioning his relationships with Ayers, Wright, et al.) “could” threaten her freedom of speech. That’s a strange attitude to have about the First Amendment, but, considering that she reportedly thought Africa was a country, not a continent, and didn’t know which countries participated in NAFTA — well, her political opinions generally could be considered uninformed.

    ABC News’s Jake Tapper covered the Obama campaign’s treatment of reporters (including the plane incident) on his blog, and complained about the absence of press conferences (involving either Obama or Biden) during the last weeks of the campaign; Howard Kurtz, on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” regularly questioned the press coverage of McCain vs. Obama.

    Given that Obama had a steady lead in the polls, it made sense tactically to limit the candidates’ press availability, and thereby limit the possibilities for embarrassing questions or answers to be publicized. Given that right-wingers were resorting to crackpot notions such as Obama’s birth certificate being faked, etc., in attempts to kill his candidacy instantly, one can sympathize with Obama’s desire to play it safe.

    SRS

  59. Mark:
    “So, will President Obama swing wide the jail cells of Guantanamo on Jan. 21st? I don’t recall him saying that at any point.”

    He didn’t say precisely that, but both he and McCain had, IIRC, pledged to close Gitmo. Neither gave a timeline, but I believe that both meant this promise.

  60. Republicans, conservatives, McCain supporters,…need to buck up. Your boys had a shot. They screwed it up,…from the top to the bottom. Eight years of failure. Time to give someone with a brain a shot.

  61. Allowing homosexuals to marry is still a murky subject for a lot of people. If anyone knows of a website or an article which details why it’s so important to allow them to marry and the legal difference between a “civil union” and marriage, I would appreciate it.

    It’s not a murky subject for me, I want to add. I’m asking for the info to give out to others because I live in the south where religion is king. I personally see no reason to prevent homosexuals from getting married, and I hope that one day they can suffer through the same annoying marriage discussions and pressures as we do.

    (on a side note, I’m not at all surprised by the information about which demographic most often voted to prevent homosexuals from getting married)

  62. I imagine gay people want to get married because they’re people and sometimes people want to get married.

    That’s why I find the term “gay marriage” so stupid. There’s just marriage. You don’t get “gay married.” You get married.

    Why is it important? Because civil society is a fragile construct that at its beautiful heart depends on a conception of the individual that comes before sex, race and orientation. To deny someone full participation in that society based on one of those non-essential factors threatens the fabric of our basic social compact and at the very least poisons its nature.

    This is a nice letter on the matter from a different perspective:

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/welcome-to-the.html

  63. There is a cluster of beliefs that people opposed to same-sex marriages might hold:

    1) Marriage is a sacrament.
    2) The primary purpose of sex within marriage is to procreate.
    3) Violation of a sacrament is wrong.
    4) Recreational sex is immoral.
    5) Homosexuality is abnormal, and engaging in such sex is immoral.

    People who hold at least some of those beliefs are likely, I think, to react negatively to the idea of same-sex marriage and to passively oppose it. People who hold all of those beliefs will be angered when confronted with the issue of same-sex marriage and will actively oppose the legitimization of it.

    There are sound arguments to be made for legitimizing same-sex marriage, since one can make a case for society as a whole benefiting from monogamous, legal relationships; in that respect, promiscuous heteros hurt society at least as much as promiscuous gays and lesbians do. But the religious beliefs that opponents of same-sex marriage hold, that underlie that opposition — I don’t see a way to convince them that they’re wrong without attacking their religion. Engaging in arguments with religion-based opponents will always fail.

    SRS

  64. Using the word “promiscuous” implies a judgement based on morality. I would love to see someone make a case for society as a whole benefiting from monogamous, legal relationships that ISN’T based,…to some degree,…on religious beliefs. Oppressive religious beliefs. Engaging in arguments with religion-based opponents is essential. Supposing that religious beliefs are status quo is supposing incorrectly.

  65. A stable society requires a generally accepted code of conduct. If that code isn’t based on humanism, what will it ultimately be based on, other than some form of religion? Anarchy isn’t an option, and since it isn’t, people will tend to prefer that social relationships be defined within the existing legal system.

    There’s no obvious benefit to having a social union marked by a marriage rite; the desire for the rite and the enjoyment derived from it is all emotion. From that perspective, there’s no more reason for heteros to have marriage rites than there is for gays and lesbians — but it’s useless to argue that heteros should just ignore same-sex unions, whether they’re marriages or legal paperwork. Too many people view marriage as a sacrament that same-sex marriages desecrate. One can’t wish away Catholicism or Fundamentalism, or convince fundamentalists that their beliefs aren’t rational.

    SRS

  66. Thanks for the link, Spurge. I think I just saw that guy on the Colbert Report.

    I heard that newspapers were selling out all in New York. Obama really IS special. He made print relevant again.

    I would still be ever so grateful if someone could direct me to information which details the LEGAL difference between a civil union and marriage.

  67. One can never wish away anything. One maintains rationality in the face of irrationality,…so that,…and until,…religious people understand that the one perspective is not the only perspective and that subjective rules don’t govern the universe and one doesn’t come to the conclusion that engaging in arguments with religion-based opponents will always fail.
    (Respectfully.)