Paul Ryan should help ensure a landslide. The choice addresses the problems of the present, looking forward with competence, ethics, hard work and leadership. This is an optimistic and serious choice.

Too true!

Jim, I add my condolences for you loss and gratitude that no one was home. Be careful as your reenter the area. A friend of my sister's experienced severe lung disease just months after the the loss of his Birmingham home and subsequent clean-up.

Sending prayers your way and following this article for word of anything we can do to help.

Following and tweeted. Great job of distilling the issue to its meaningful essence. Thank you!

This is such a sad day. A devastating loss for conservative media in addition to his poor family . I grieve with them and will hold them in my prayers during this terrible time. Thank you for writing this tribute. The passionate rapier force that was Andrew Breitbart will be mourned for a very long time, indeed.

Tea Party groups I know are educators, giving constitutional workshops and basing their activities and positions on specific constitutional principles.

The "occupier" crowds rail against bankers rather than the crony-capitalist politicians that empower them. In other words, these mostly anarchistic, overly-emotional Wall Street haters just ain't that bright (useful idiots).

Mitt was governor for 4 years. Period. True it was a deep blue state. Still 4 years. End of political career. And, yes, I know he grew up in a political family.

If/when I vote for Mitt, it will be because of his career outside politics, for the Supreme Court, for the fact he will be running against the Worst President Ever, and because I will have knocked myself out sending a Tea Party contingent from North Carolina to keep tabs on him.

As for now, Herman Cain is my guy. I pray people will continue to focus on his positive, common sense conservative message. My only concern is not Cain's lack of political resume, but his health. His VP pick will be the most important decision he makes.

Great interview, Peter. I'm with you...laughing so as not to cry.

Ouch! I liked the example Steyn gives about the comedian giving the lesbophobic rant in 1981 (before there "was" Canadian free speech) v. now.

What about the camp that pushes MORE isolationism (bring military home from middle-east and put them on the borders) as the answer?
The migration of Hezbollah over our southern borders - even up from Venezuelan training camps - is at least a three-year-old problem. I agree with those who say no 'defense' will happen except in answer to a really big explosion. As Paul Ryan and others say of the debt, this is a most predictable catastrophe about which nothing is being done.

Just one comment on the tendency to compare SSM with racial civil rights. This entire line of thinking assumes homosexuality is, indeed, wholly genetic. There are no definitive linkages one way or the other to my knowledge.

Even if one develops at some time in the future, there will be the ethical problem of whether the condition can and/or should be "treated." IOW, is homosexuality more akin to skin color? Or is it more akin to an endocrine "disorder?"
In either case, back on the topic of SSM, would we deny property and estate and adoption "rights" to, say, a diabetic? The state could make an argument that its marriage "subsidies" are too costly to sanction marriage among diabetics.

Ergo, the crux of the "no" SSM argument hinges upon whether homosexuality is purely behavioral. Or, whether the bestowal of Matrimony is in the exclusive purview of the state.

I believe there are some very Orwellian ramifications which is why I tend toward universal state-sanctioned civil unions for all, marriage by the church.

This is why I believe it may minimize divisiveness and accommodate the most people by adopting state (e.g. not federal) issued civil unions for all with the church retaining "marriage" in its domain. Unfortunately, the entire civil rights angle inherent in SSM is what invites greater federal intervention. I believe we already have too much federal intervention into our lives and lifestyles.

As Paul infers above, and if it can be proved that SSM is contributing to the "fall of" Europe, I would change my position immediately. While I agree that one man-one woman is the strongest family structure, it will be difficult to measure and will most probably take generations to do so. This is especially true given the added impact of intense immigration in Europe. IOW, how much of the "fall of" Europe is due to SSM v. assimilation?

Kenneth, you may be onto something there. ;D

KC, Many heterosexual couples cannot have children together....

Acceptance is the goal. I stated as much above. There is a movement afoot to define homosexuality as genetically or otherwise ingrained in a person which would color the issue as a civil right, absolutely.

Your Roe v. Wade observation is equally valid, imo. You cannot legislate morality or acceptance.

• “Hospital visitation” covers a wider range of legal issue surrounding incapacitation and is a bit more than a red-herring. IF one’s documents are all in place, hospitals can share information and accept decisions from the person named in the advanced directives and powers of attorney. Married people do not have to produce all those documents. Therefore, in the case of sudden incapacitation, hospitals are free to deal with the hetero-spouse.

• As to ‘property rights,’ I might have more correctly named (sudden) estate issues.

Each of these has been objected to as unequal protection. I believe each of these problems could be addressed by universal civil unions without redefining marriage.
Problem is, all our laws are written using the term, “marriage”. Under my scenario, which I believe is an imperfect yet workable moral compromise, the costs to convert would be astronomical. That is one reason so many are pushing for ‘gay marriage.’ That and the obvious social legitimization/recognition they are seeking.

Lemme see if I can handle these in bullet form (remember I’m not a proponent of gay marriage):

• If the primary societal purpose of raising children is to parent, proponents rebut with the adoption by gays (or natural assisted parenting) argument. They also argue that “gender” is separate from sexuality. Homosexuals, they argue, can raise children and provide stable families and model ranges of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ for them.

“Civil society may not have much to say about other species of friendship. But it cannot survive if it does not nurture matrimony and the obligations attendant on it.” - Paul A. Rahe

I agree with you, but playing the devil’s advocate here: can you prove it? Can you point objective data where gays and lesbians were allowed to mainstream and parent?