People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.
That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.
Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.
In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage.
The Spectacle Blog
I'll be on CNBC around 5:30 eastern with Kudlow and Co. If I'm asked to be on, Larry must be in the mood to blow something up. It is, after all, the age of specialization. Hope you can catch it.
Wheaton College's foremost scholar, historian Mark Noll (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind), is headed to the University of Notre Dame in the fall, Christianity Today reports. As a little background, Wheaton is the evangelical Christian school that just okayed dancing among its students a couple years ago and recently fired a popular professor when he converted to Catholicism. So the irony is a little rich, even if Professor Noll is only swimming the Tiber in profession and not confession.
At Mirror of Justice, Rob Vischer reacts:
Are all for stories on a jury in Mineola, N.Y., rejecting a widow's claim in a civil suit that her husband's injuries suffered from ducking a piece of shrimp led to his death. (May the man rest in peace, but this is the kind of suit that gives torts a bad name.) Headline writers around the world had a great time with this:
The Wall Street Journal's headline first came to my attention: "Jury Rejects Claim Flying Shrimp Led to New York Man's Death."
L.A. Times: "Flying Shrimp Didn't Kill Man, Jury Decides."
New York Times: "Benihana Wins Flying Sizzling Shrimp Case."
And it goes downhill from there:
Dave, I agree that he could have done better; he seemed to only fall into a good rhythm about halfway in. But my point was that the crowd seemed to like him a lot.
(Unfortunately, my recording of the speech is too low-quality to post -- he spoke during dessert and there was lots of dish-shuffling near my recorder -- so readers will just have to take our word.)
John, I'm sure his numbers will go up, but I'm not sure that reflects last night's speech as much as his general political fortunes. I favor him in spite of last night's speech.
Generally, he came across as affable and charming. But the content and delivery of his speech was largely rough and stumbling. He needs a speechwriter and a speech coach who will play to his folksy strengths (for example, the repeated "all y'all" seems like he's trying too hard -- "y'all" would do nicely).
Clearly, Sen. Allen's running for president. But the Senate campaign is a much needed warmup. Because if that's how he looks in two years' time, I seriously doubt he can beat Hillary.
Source who is my new Dr. Strangelove argues effectively that strategic bombers with gravity bunker buster bombs can sufficiently damage Iran's nuclear weapons fuel cycle facilities in one night to end the program.
Argues that it is not necessary to destroy all the facilities, just key nodes.
When asked about the day after, source is matter of fact that the Iranians will respond in some of seventeen ways, including closing the Hormuz Strait, and that any one of the seventeen ways will be enough to paralyze worldwide energy markets.
I asked if the one night of bombing will begin several years of nightmares.
Source counters that the oil shock will be severe but not indefinite: that Western economies will recover; that Iran's economy will not recover and surrender will follow eventually.
In sum, bombing Iran to end the nuke program is not the end of the markets, but a shadow will fall over your kitchen table for a few quarters.
Source argues that the alternative, permitting Iran to produce and mount a nuclear weapon force in due time, will lead to much worse than an oil shock.
Okay. I begin to see the unseeable.
Spoke several excellent sources in re Israel and Palestinians, and all agree that a third intifada is imminent, though one did call it a war, not an intifada. Hamas will not relent on its position that it is committed to a violent defeat of Israel. The intifada will be run by Al Aqsa from the West Bank, especially the Balata refugee camp, and by Islamic Jihad from the West Bank and Gaza. The third intifada will include suicide belts as well as the first-ever rocket attacks from the West Bank into Israel.
Israel's response to the intifada is not predictable. Olmert is campaigning to the left to win as many peace-now seats as possible. Netanyahu will stay hard right and urge war and effective annexation of the territories.
Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad gain with the new intifada by establishing credibility as the street fighters, while Hamas gains by assuming the role of diplomat to the Europeans: the Putin gesture to Hamas is the beginning of the reinvention of a terror gang into a freedom collective.