Facebook has money now lots of it....it is worth 100 billion dollars. I believe that qualifies it as "To Big to Fail". 

There is the sticking point I too often detect, in discussions of SSM. I agree with you Doug. Society should encourage homosexuals to be in stable long term relationships, just like we do with heterosexuals. But, many including some on Ricochet think that society should discourage homosexuality as either unhealthy, or improper. 

We can all haggle over what public trappings and titles we bestow onto relationships if we all at least agree those relationships are legitimate and worthy of acknowledgment. I fear though too many people don't share that view. 

I like John, and he is right. The idea that he is not paying his fair share is BS. It is irrelevant whether he is willing to pay more or not. Under the right circumstances I making my modest Graduate Student salary will be willing to pay more. That does not change the fact that the rhetoric of the Dems on this issue is utter BS. 

Yah, we should make our taxes and regulations more globally competitive and all that we all agree...but when I hear a story like this, honestly, my first impression is "screw that guy".

While I think I would be cool enough to not pass a law to punish him for dropping citizenship I would not be above being personally petty against him as a matter of principle. But, then again I subscribe to a policy of bitter and lasting vengeance in all things. 

The one law I would pass is one stating that you can never regain US citizenship after you have renounced it. 

Burritos are the best food on earth and when they are deep fried they become, like all food, even better. In fact one of the reasons I could never really live outside the US is the fact that I could not get Burritos. Have you tried finding a Mexican restaurant in Europe? I spent 4 months looking for one in Newcastle.... I eventually gave up and decided I would make my own Mexican food. It took me 4 hours to find refired beans, and I could not find jalapenos. 

Viva Buritos!

I feel one can blame the decline in hard manual labor on increased obesity too. The average Medieval diet was around 4,000 calories which is actually higher than what most people eat today. There is little indication medieval Europeans had an epidemic of obesity. The reason is that most of them were engaged in incredibly strenuous physical labor. 

Today even traditionally hard jobs like bailing hay, tilling field, digging holes, require little effort on the part of the workers thanks to technological aids and machines. A cultural push to fitness and sports would probably counteract our problems.

I think the lesson of the dog example is that there is a lot of our "morality" that is based on pure and irrational impulses. We could all think it "wrong" to eat Fluffy, but would it be right to pass a law to prevent the one odd family from doing so? 

The US government could not force a Religion to perform a religious ceremony, I think they would loose that supreme court case. On the other hand a religious institution can not demand that it be above criticism of its religious practices and doctrines. 

The problem with marriage is that its religious and non-religious forms are so intertwined, by the fact that government would recognize a religious ceremony as legally binding. This problem could be solved by just not removing the government from recognizing any relationships in any way. 

Are we sure those women are really free to choose to leave those relationships?

Jim: With respect to polygamy. I think that there are far fewer people interested in engaging in such relations assuming all parties are free to choose. Any interest in such an arrangement quickly falls apart and in situations without coercion people usually go their separate ways as so many free love communes found out. The few cases where some strange individuals find each other and make it work are probably so rare as to be negligible. 

If as people such as Katieves  are right about claim as to the innate naturalness of complimentary and monogamy, social recognition of divergent and rare arrangements will not change the prevailing practices. Laws can't change human nature one way or the other, they can only suppress it. Those aspects of our nature that are good need not be suppressed those that are bad must be curtailed as rationally as possible. 

I agree with the idea that at the heart of SSM debate is really the question of whether homosexuality is one of the bad aspects of our nature. If it can be so argued than Katievs is right, if it is not than Trace is right. I lean towards no. 

Is there a position that can not be defended by religious liberty? I mean religions can create whatever irrational beliefs their founders and adherents want. If your religion teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old and made by God in on a Tuesday does the teaching of Modern cosmology and its promotion by NSF run up against your religious liberty? 

When you say forced you make it sound like you will be water boarded until you admit homosexuality is normal.  That isn't what they are doing in schools. It seems to me you don't like having to compete with another ideology. 

Social approval of homosexuality is the the entire goal of homosexuals, and who can blame them? If I knew people thought I was unnatural and inherently flawed I might take a more vigorous stance in defending and promoting my way of life as normal too. Obtaining the right to marry is the societal seal of approval of their relationships. 

I think it is foolish of them to try to force the issue through courts and political maneuvers, but ultimately acceptance is what they need. 

Pseudo...abortion existed before and is independent of homosexuality. I would think actually the increase in families in need of adoption might sway many expecting mothers to choose to let their baby be adopted by a gay couple rather than abort it. 

Every last gay person I know (which isn't to many granted) are fine and moral citizens. They are not debauched hedonists, in fact I would not have realized any of them were gay had they not told me. Their relationships (those who have them) are as loving and normal as any heterosexual ones I have seen. 

I say right on Trace. 

I think we agree on this, and I hope rather strongly California and Illinois get their own Scott Walkers or Chris Christie...

The States aren't Nations. People have moved between them and to them for as long as they have been. States also change, you will have to accept this I am afraid. The one thing you can be glad about is that Texas won't actually change into California any more than Florida changed into New York. Your best defense (If you wish to take such a crude stance) is to be friendly and overwhelm guests with local flair, integrate them into being Texan. Show them how much better things are when you do things the Texas way. 

What makes foreigners become American isn't the harsh reprimands of angry locals. Rather it is the genial American friendliness, tasty foods, fun sports, and constant affirmation of why where you live is the best place on Earth. In great American cities and towns people really want to make you know why here is so great. And you know? After awhile you come to believe them. 

No one wants to see a thing they love change beyond recognition, and turn into something bad. 

I wish to put forth an attempt to defend Mr. Jerry Brown, with the caveat that I really know nothing about him, and I really will be talking about some one else. 

I have recently found myself in the odd position of cheering for Rahm Emanuel. Why you may ask? Because so far he is the first prominent Illinois politician that has actually called out the fact that the state pension system is insane and will ruin the City of Chicago and the state as well. He has proposed what I think are rather good suggestions of stopping compounding cost of living adjustments, increasing retirement ages, and asking for more employee contributions to the system. This may be a trick, but I'm hopping its not because the city of Chicago has billions in unfunded liabilities. I see some hope in this. Maybe Mr. Brown sees the writing on the wall, but can't find a good way to muster the political will in what sounds like the most dysfunctional state house in the Union. 

I may be wrong, about Rahm, and probably about Brown, but darn it who else is there if not these people?