Proposition 8

So California has determined that Prop 8 will remain in effect. Yet, the marriages which occurred prior to Prop 8 (I believe there are 18000 of them) will remain in effect. What the heck?

California has determined that same-sex marriage is not legal but the 18000 same sex couples, who married during the period of time CA did permit same-sex marriage, are legal. This is crazy.

I don't believe you can say no to one and yes to the other. It makes no sense. But go right ahead, California. I am sure this legal maneuver will make it much easier for someone to take this fight to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Then, hopefully, most assuredly (because nothing else makes sense) same-sex marriage will become legal in the United States of America for anyone who wishes to enter into it. Sanity will rule! Small minded, Bronze Age superstition will be put in its place!

I can't wait!

Abortion

Gallup has released a poll claiming a slight edge to the Pro-Life opinion. It's pretty much 51/49 give or take a few decimal points.

Why are we still posing this question? Roe V Wade was decided in 1973, a full 36 years ago. What other Supreme Court decisions are bandied about, decades later?

Oh wait, I am forgetting, this is the Right Wing we're discussing. They've been grasping at straws ever since an intelligent, well thought, reasoned person was inaugurated 4 months ago.

Roe V Wade should never have had to happen in the first place. The government doesn't belong in the decision making process between a woman and her doctor. Yet, they had to ram rod their opinion into the collective dialog. So now it is the law of the land. Be careful what you wish for, GOP.

Your followers need you to come up with some important, real opinions which help them and help to get you out of your exile. Rehashing the past is lame. Start proposing intelligent opinions for 21st Century situations.

Here are some suggested topics: Health Care, Equal Rights for All (same-sex marriage), The Economy. Now get on it. Time is a wasting!

Bad, Bad Atheists!

Archbishop of Westminster attacks atheism but says nothing on child abuse
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6334837.ece

<At the installation of the Most Rev Vincent Nichols at Westminster Cathedral, his predecessor, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, described a lack of faith as “the greatest of evils” and blamed atheism for war and destruction, implying that it was a greater evil even than sin itself. After receiving the crozier marking the office, Archbishop Nichols, glitteringly vested in newly minted gold mitre and chasuble, also defended faith against the secular agenda.>>

Of course! Why didn't I think of that? Atheists are evil doers. It's so blatantly obvious. (Just sweep that misunderstanding about Irish Catholic schools and their child abuse right under that carpet over there). Yes, that's better.....now back to those evil doing atheists.....

Pelosi

So now the Republicans are snickering with glee. They're pointing fingers at Nancy Pelosi, saying she didn't do anything to stop the torture! Isn't that an outright admission of torture right there? If I broke your window and denied it then Tommy chimed in claiming Nancy knew I had done it, does that make me less guilty? Yes, a tortured example but the best I can come up with off the top of my head (where my pain resides).

Dick Cheney

What's the deal with former Vice President Richard Cheney? He's all over the place! During the Bush administration, he kept a low profile. He was very secretive about his office and who visited him there. Now, we can't get him to shut up!

His latest foray was on Face the Nation (CBS) this morning. I didn't watch the entire interview. There's only so much crap a person can tolerate before changing the channel.

I did hear him proclaim that Colin Powell is a Democrat. He also wants the release of the memos which prove torture (particularly water-boarding) provided a benefit to our country (yeah, all 183 or some odd times, I suppose).

I have heard that the Republicans wish he would just shut up. He seems to be planting a bug in our ears so if we are ever attacked again, he can say "I told you so. We were much safer under the Bush years".

The man has a severe heart condition. He's a senior citizen. The terrorists are extremely patient. It will be a very long time before we have a Republican in the White House again. The Bush Administration made sure of that. Barack Obama is doing the right things to protect our country. Cheney won't be around if we are ever attacked again. I won't be around and I'm at least 25 years younger than him.

He's a burr in our collective saddle.

Elizabeth Edwards

Elizabeth Edwards has written a book, Resilience, and was recently interviewed by Oprah for her television show. I watched the interview but have not read the book (nor do I expect I will in the future).

What struck me as odd was the comment Mrs. Edwards made about her husband's possible paternity of the baby Rielle Hunter (the other woman) has. Mrs. Edwards stated even if her husband is the father, it will have no affect on her life.

Perhaps Mrs. Edwards is coming at this from the POV of not letting this baby's existence enter her mind or her life at this time. After all, she is battling a terminal case of cancer. She needs to concentrate her energy toward taking care of herself and her children.

Personally, I think she is fooling herself. If it turns out to be so, this baby will be the ½ sister of Mrs. Edwards' children. They will probably want to know their sister and she, them.

I fervently believe her comment might just come back to bite her. Rielle Hunter might decide a paternity test is worthwhile and she might want John involved in the baby's life. All this because of Elizabeth's comment that this won't affect her life in any way. Never say never.

My second problem with this family is how Mrs. Edwards stood up in front of the country whenever she could and professed the good character of her husband. All while knowing he had cheated on her on numerous occasions with a videographer who thought he was "hot".

He is not hot. A hot man doesn't go out behind his wife's back, especially a wife who is fighting cancer. There's no accounting for taste.