Liam

So, you want religions to determine to whom the state should issue certain licenses? That seems very theocratic to me. No, the British system didn't restrict gays from "marriage" because it is a private and/or religious arrangement. They only offered gays "civil union" certificates, not the same marriage licenses they hand out to every capricious straight couple before they head to the altar for the fifth or sixth time.

As an American, I think there are pros and cons of having the US be the world's police. First, it costs us a lot, both in terms of $$ and in terms of alliances, etc. On the pro side, though, I don't think I'd rather live in a world that was policed by China or Russia or India. The only other country I think we could all tolerate in that role would be Britain, but she's not up to the task anymore.

When in doubt, blame Clinton. FWIW, Clinton did not put up any walls among various intelligence agencies. Such walls existed for decades before Clinton became president. Clinton is about as much to blame for the walls as is Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford... The problem I have with the Patriot Act is that it was intended to be used to stop and apprehend terrorists but the Ashcroft Justice Department used it in all sorts of pernicious ways, going far beyond protecting us from terrorism. The wiretapping issue is entirely different in that Bush absolutely broke the law by putting wiretaps on US persons while circumventing the established protocol for doing so (getting a warrant from a FISA judge within 72 hours after tapping the phone). FISA warrants are handed out like candy, but Bush wanted to be able to operate the executive branch without ANY oversight by another branch of government. This is a terribly dangerous precedent to set and any so-called conservative or any so-called patriotic American who supports giving such unchecked power to the president is a traitor to America's ideals of balanced power and individual liberty. Aside from that, Bush lied to the public by claiming that all wiretaps were issued pursuant to a warrant. Big lie.

Yes, I have read some of Hitler's writings. Hitler was not at all a "lefty" and you are sadly wrong if you think so. Hitler believed the #1 evil in the world was Soviet-style socialism, partly due to his belief that it was a way to concentrate power in the hands of Jews, but primarily because it's political theories were diametrically opposed to Hitler's corporatist beliefs. Fascism, as practiced by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc., was not a leftist philosophy. If anything, Communists and Socialists were their biggest enemy. Hitler's main beef with western-style capitalism is that he believed it encouraged race mixing and the mongrelization of pure European blood.

Hitler (and Mussolini and the juntas thay fomented decades of "dirty wars" across Latin America) was a right winger. Mussolini explained that fascism was better termed corporatism as it is the merging of a country's corporate and political spheres. Hitler was no liberal. Hitler despised liberals.

This guy admitted that he's only running as a Democrat because that's how he was registered the last time he voted. (I suspect that would have been for Wallace in '68.) The sad thing is this guy would probably get farther along among Ohio Republicans.

I am pretty liberal by US standards but I am a happy person and optimistic about my life. (I am not happy about the political direction the GOP has taken my country, but I know the pendulum will swing back and they'll be in the minority again some day.) I truly believe things will get better. I am the kind who thinks the music, the clothes, the food, almost everything is better today than when I was a teenager (I am 38) and I expect things will continue to evolve in a way that will interest me. On the contrary, the conservatives I have been exposed to are, in general, so afraid of life outside their comfort zone that they cannot possibly be truly happy people. Content, maybe. Compromising and self-limiting, absolutely. But happy? I find that hard to believe.

How can a group who are constantly worried about what's going on in their neighbors' bedrooms be all that happy? They might say they're happy, but they're about as happy as puritans in a brewery.

I am constantly amazed at how many "righties" get their news from Fox.

I heard that Coulter of plagarized that column about the Oscar films. And it doesn't surprise me she'd expect Felicity Huffman to win. Ever notice Coulter's adam's apple? I normally enjoy the Oscar telecast, but I think Stewart was not a good choice as host. His funniest joke was a jab at the liberals in the audience, saying that in picking the Oscars at least they could say they voted for a winner. The only surprise of the night for me was Crash's win over Brokeback. Brokeback was the only one of the five best picture films that I actually wanted to see and I found it absolutely compelling. Ang Lee did a fantastic job directing and McMurtry/Ossana did wonders with the screenplay. I think Michelle Williams was the best performer in the film.

And I suppose you're similarly outraged by conservative groups, ministers, and the like who counsel abused and terrified women to return to their marriages, oh, and drop some money in the collection box on the way out...(?) I read through your litany of terrors that await women in shelters and, maybe it's the lawyer in me, but it strikes as a huge pile of horse-sh*t. Anyone can find a handful of examples of bad behavior or corrupt individuals within institutional structures and report that "some" are this, that, and the other. The fact remains that 99% of shelters provide life-saving services to abused women and kids and those victims need the services and welcome the support these shelters provide. Would you rather we shut down these places (heaven forbid some of the social workers in them should be -- gasp! -- lesbians!!) and send women back to a life of intimidation, and back to verbal and physical abuse and possibly death?

I'm not Canadian, but this "Real" Women group sounds strikingly familiar to a radical right wing group here in the US: The Concerned Women for America. No one on the right sees the irony behind the fact that the CWA is headed up by a man. Essentially, it acts like a counter-reformation to the feminist movement whereby it seems that its underlying tenet is that women are equal (white, Christian, anti-Darwinist, anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-barefoot-and-pregnant women, that is).

If abortion is 'murder' (as most anti-abortionists claim) then it does not make a difference how the child was conceived because it is still murder to have an abortion. I can understand why Bush is taking that position because he realizes that even if many Americans may find abortion morally repugnant, they really do not believe it is murder. Sparhawk, I didn;t see your reply before I responded.

The pro-life argument is that a fetus is a human life. It does not matter if it results from rape or incest or from a balanced, healthy relationship. Abortion when the life of the mother is threatened is an entirely different moral decision, but it is entirely disingenuous for anyone who claims that a fetus is a life to make excpetions. If the fetus is a human and abortion is murder, why is this murder okay based on how the egg got fertilized or who the parents are? It's not the baby's fault that his mother got raped or that his parents are blood relatives. Making an exception in the case of rape or incest is a complete cop out on the part of anyone who is stridently pro-life. I'll admit that I am pro-choice (on a political level) but pro-life in terms of my own life decisions (I just couldn't imagine getting a girl pregnant and insisting on an abortion). I struggle with that contradiction. But it is entirely intellectually dishonest for someone to be pro-life *except* in cases of rape or incest.

Actually, a bit of the opposition to the ports deal is based on the fact that the Bush administration failed to adhere to the law requiring a 45 day review period for such transactions when national security concerns are at play. Also, memebrs of Bush's inner circle who approved the deal have extensive business ties with the parties negotiating the sale. Values and vision? I suppose they value the vision of dollars dancing in their heads. Also, what concerns a lot of people is that the Dubai company is government owned. The US normally does not allow foreign governments to control assets that impact our national security. I'm not saying that xenophobia and anti-Arab sentiment don't exist here, but the least you could do is be intellectually honest (nearly impossible for a Bush supporter, I understand) and admit that the same feeling is being expressed by liberals, conservatives, Democrats and Republicans alike. Nice try, though.

Elton John and David Furnish did not have the legal standing to get a "marriage" certificate. British law only allows same sex couples to get a civil union certificate. They had no choice in the matter. Assuming there is different treatment under the law based on which type of union you enter (marriage v. civil union), I can tell you that as a gay man, the percentage of gay men I know who would willingly choose the one that gave fewer protections is virtually non-existent.

The problem rests largely with the West, actually. In our need for natural resources (oil, mineral wealth, etc.), we've favored dictators, strongmen, and royal families who see every political movement within their borders as a threat. These dictators jailed free thinkers, dissidents, educators, and political mavericks, leaving a vaccuum that could only be filled with the one entity the dictators dare not challenge: the religious establishment. The Islamic mullahs have become the only "opposition" to the establishment. When we go marching into the Middle East demanding democracy, the only choice voters have is to go with their oppressor or someone new. This is exactly what happened in the Palestinian Authority. People didn't vote for Hamas as much as they voted against Fatah. Our quest for democracy in the Middle East is fifty years too soon. We should be putting our efforts into developing viable secular and economic alternatives to the status quo in the Middle East. Only when there is a viable alternative to the existing power structure can we expect more western-style democracies in the region.

I suppose this also makes Republicans un-American?? Why does the GodOP hate our freedom?!?!?! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11365518/

"The Kids in the Hall" was very popular for many years here in the US. It used to be aired on Comdey Central. I loved it ("crush, crush your skull")! Isn't "DeGrassi Junior High" a Canadian show? That was also popular and remains quite the cult hit.

Don't forget about the persistent links between 9/11 and Saddam -- 70% of FOX viewers believe Saddam played a part in 9/11. Now, where could they have gotten that idea? I guess facts don't matter when you've got FOX. Talk radio is almost 100% right wing, but I listen on occasion and last week actually heard a caller rant about Hillary Clinton, about how she's against the war, how she's tearing down our soldiers, etc. The host didn't even bother to correct the caller's total mischaracterization: Hillary has been one of the most blindly pro-war Senators on the Hill. I think it's totally fair for anyone to question Hillary's political motivations at being so out in front on her support of the war, but to say that she is against the war when all she has ever done is support the White House's Iraq policy is a bold-faced lie.

First, with millions of dollars in newscaster contracts, hundreds of support staff, bureaus around the world extremely valuable channel space on cable systems across the globe, and a multi-billion dollar corporate parent, it is utterly delusional to think that Fox is not part of the "MSM". It is as "MS" as CNN, NBC and the rest. Like many things from the hard right, this hyperventilation over the supposed "softball" interview with Cheney is all manufactured outrage. No one is saying that Brit Hume didn't do a good job and didn't ask good questions. No one called it a softball and no one compared it to the likes of a Larry King interview.

I don't know why, but all Spike's posts remind me of this.

I have two kids and can say that I have never formally spanked them. If they're misbehaving, I have been known to give a light tap on their bums as I send them to their rooms. It bruises their ego more than anything else and my kids are extremely well-behaved 99% of the time. There are many ways a parent can discipline without resorting to spanking. Oddly enough, while I don't spank, I have more respect for those parents who occasionally do (within reason) than for the touchy-feely parents who only try reason and begging.

Are you consistent with family and friends who are not married in a church -- that their union is somehow invalid and/or less than yours?

You know what, the best way is for those who disagree strongly with the preachings of their religion to branch out on their own. That's why we have the protestants. They opposed some teachings of the Catholic church, was it not? There's no stopping for gays and those who strongly oppose the beliefs of their religion regarding gays and gay marriage to make their own religion. They can interpret whatever doctrine or bible or koran it is to their hearts' content...and they will also enjoy the same freedom encompassed under religious freedom. That's fine, but it does not solve the underlying problem for 99% of the gays who live in the western hemisphere: they live in places where the state will not issue them a license to join in union of any kind. The only places in the western hemisphere where the government will give gay people a marriage license is Canada and here in Massachusetts. In the rest of the western world, gay people are truly second class citizens in that the right to marry -- which is routinely granted to the most capricious, drunk, careless, insincere straight person visiting the local wedding "chapel" -- is denied them. Forming a gay church would not cure the underlying denial of equal access to a state-issued license.