I'm with John on this one. If the Gay Marriage folks can actually get a law passed, then good for them, since they will have run the gauntlet of the correct "process". Hopefully this case will not become our next "Roe v. Wade" decision; would rather see SCOTUS not accept the case based on the arguments, effectively making it a States' Rights issue (per John's "marketplace" concept). If SCOTUS actually takes the case and rules against the Judge's decision, this does not preclude the possibility that the Gay Marriage lobby could actually succeed in getting a law passed in the future allowing Gay Marriage in CA (or any other State), which would of course invalidate the prior laws created by statewide initiatvie process.

Yes, Rob, you are correct. Strange how a rape victim in Afghanistan/Pakistan can be convicted of adultery, but that's not as worthy of our attention as the same thing occurring in Darfur. So how are we to prioritize? It is interesting that the left continually disses Administrations' efforts to engage an enemy where we actually have a national interest, but think it's OK for the US to commit blood and treasure where we have limited to zero national interest. Perhaps this "prioritization" is what really bothers them? It is brutal to choose. But when/where do we draw the line? Wouldn't other cultures still harp on America for "imposing their ideas/mores" in an Empire-like fashion? Tough to figure out.

Pat, your idea is __ __ E S __ __ E (I'm giving you RSTLNE)!!

Yes, living in the Bay Area, you know, home of the Tesla, I see delusional thinking all the time. Everyone else is right and I am wrong. Is it wrong to point out that there is NO way to even come close to being able to measure "anthropogenic" aspects of global warming? Isn't this the "science" part? Is it wrong to point out that the most poetically simple explanation is the multi-century cycles caused by that big yellow thing in the sky? And that most other sciences have evidence that corroborate this theory?

Am I crazy? Would I be wrong to point out that global warming researchers trying to get their PhD's in their respective fields are looking for a certain type of grant...oh yeah, it's called a "government" grant, right?

If anyone needs some good stuff to "suggest" that someone read, Bjorn Lomborg has a couple of terrific books, and there is a great refutation of antrhopogenic global warming in "SuperFreakonomics".

If we want to use the Reagan conservative model, there are three legs of the stool: foreign policy, economics, social values. Romney actually has all three, and importantly can communicate intelligently about all three. He gets knocks from some about being Mormon, but I think people would "get over" it. After all, the last election the Democratic ticket was fought between a woman and a black man-- and we can't get over religion??!? In general Mormons are good high quality family people; granted, there's some strange stuff in their book, but I'm Catholic and the same thing could of course be argued; it took Kennedy to have voters accept Catholicism.

McCain, Romney, Huckabee split the primary vote among three legs of the stool. Had Huckabee not stayed so long in the South (who knows what kind of deal there was between Huck and McCain?) I believe Romney would have been the eventual nominee. So what did we end up with with McCain/Palin? TWO legs of the stool (foreign policy/social), ZERO economics. What did the campaign come down to in Sep/Oct of 2008? Economics! Who would have understood better than all other candidates: Romney.