Hopefully one of my best friends won't mind my sharing her name here, because even though she's a total pinko commie, her name is fabulously a palindrome: Sirrah Harris

I've never felt this sad about someone I've never actually met in person. We will not see his like again. I'm relieved that he's no longer in pain, jealous that he probably now knows how Game of Thrones is going to end, and almost certain that he's already watched over S.E. Cupp as she was showering. I hope he keeps an eye on all of us. There's no one else I'd rather have watching my back. Farewell, my friend. We didn't get to meet in this world, but spending time with you in the next will be a singular blessing. 

I think our articulation of our views is what's got to change. I'm not a fan of abortion, I certainly don't want to pay for one or make anyone else, but I'm not going to stop a woman who has been raped (or a 12 year old girl who has been raped by her father) from having one...and I'm DEFINITELY not going to tell her that what happened to her is God's will. We lose a lot of credibility on social issues when people like Akin and Mourdock open their mouths. And apparently we lose a lot of votes. Marriage is a state issue, and we should keep repeating that. Younger Republicans believe it is...and most of them support it, too, so sooner or later the Party is going to as well, but in the meantime let's at least be consistent about how we feel. If it's a state issue and a state legalizes it...then we need to support the people of that state doing what they consider to be for the best. 

This is getting quite fun. I think the source for this just might be Kerry. It's oddly specific--had to be someone in the room for debate prep, and someone who has a reason to talk to the press. Kerry's reputation took an instant hit after the debate, and I can absolutely see him calling up a few reporters and throwing Obama under the bus...

I foolishly waded into arguing about this on Facebook earlier with some people who I knew were humorless feminists of the Andrea Dworkin mold, but I couldn't resist asking if anyone has consulted Greta about whether she defines this as sexual assault. No one has. I seem to recall a television interview where she even seemed pleased to be a part of history, even though she was startled in the moment and it wasn't her idea. It damages the word "rape" to use it in this context far more than it could ever damage an iconic American image. 

GQ, of all places, has an interesting take on things. It seems to scare them and it feels a little too much like wishful thinking for me to quite embrace it yet, but...stranger things have happened: 

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/2012/09/how-mitt-wins.html

Nick, I'd be fine with that--that's preferable to multiple press conferences, but it carries a lot of risk, too. The media who will cover that speech are already against him. They're looking for reasons to keep this story alive and negative. The fewer of those reasons that come from the candidate, the better as far as I'm concerned. While I agree with the sentiment he was expression, it wasn't "artful" as he put it, and it was also wrong. A lot of the people on benefits WILL be voting for him. I don't think he should let this flare up take him off the message that he was trying to get back to yesterday. I just don't want him to take his eye off the ball here--that's exactly what they want him to do. 

There's a part of me that wishes he'd just let it go and move on. Joe Scarborough pointed out last night that if reckless remarks at fundraiser's derailed presidential campaigns, we'd be dealing with President McCain right now. This is a five-day story at best. With the world as it is, something else is going to come up even if the American press doesn't want to cover it, but with Mitt there's always the possibility that explaining will just make things worse...

We definitely have much worse things to worry about at the moment, I think that's maybe the only good thing to come out of the Great Recession--most of us realize that now. Personally, I'm drawn to Mitt because the Mormons I know--and lemme tell ya, in musical theatre, they're legion--are some of the most genuinely compassionate people I've ever met. Mitt's been accused of flip-flopping but I prefer to see it as simply a willingness to reconsider his viewpoint when necessary, something we should all want in a president. 

Plus, he's got 18 grand-kids, he's bound to win the gay lotto sooner or later and a gay grandson was all it took for Barry Goldwater himself to come around on marriage and military service...I'll take my chances with Mitt. I suspect Barack only likes the gays when we're writing checks, and the polls indicating that at least 23% of gay voters are voting Republican this year make me think I'm alone there. 

Christopher Nolan!

In seriousness, I hope it's Nancy Reagan. I love the Barracuda but I don't think it would be a smart choice, nor is it really necessary. The base is  on board and she's too much of a wild card. Nancy would be a really, really great addition, though. 

Where are we getting that he's withdrawing? Fox says he's "resisting mounting calls" to withdraw. I'm assuming by tomorrow, he'll be out, but for the moment he seems to be holding firm...

A friend of mine who has a much bigger mind that mine--than most people's, I suspect--encouraged me to come back in here, and in doing so, he said he sees this issue like so: either you believe gays or dangerous...or you don't. If you don't, you won't be troubled by us getting a piece of paper from the government. If you do, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.

If even in this bastion of conservatism we can't discuss this issue without multiple exclamation points, without accusations, without ugliness...then don't kid yourself that this debate is too vicious just because of the gays, or the left, or Barack Obama, or Al Qaeda. Either we are in this boat together. Or we are not.

Now, I respect the heck out of a lot of you guys, but nobody's gonna tell me I'm less American than they are. It's my country, too. 

Ed, I'm not refusing to engage--I think if you're able to look at things rationally you'll see that I've been engaging quite a bit more than gay people tend to do in my position--I'm simply stating that arguing whether or not the government should be in the marriage business doesn't change the fact that they are in the marriage business, and will likely continue to be. If they're not in it for all Americans, that's inequality. If you support that, you're supporting inequality. Own your views. I'll respect you more, even if I disagree with them.

It's clear this isn't going anywhere productive. You have no idea how much I wish that weren't the case. To any extent, I'm out. I'm at work and should be paying more attention to that, but for some reason I thought there was a slim chance we might be able to discuss this without resorting to multiple exclamation points and accusations of slander. I was wrong. You win. Take your ball, I'll go home. The foxes yet again can vote on what to have for dinner. 

Ed, I'm not implying either, and I'm sorry that you've read that into my responses. You clearly do support denying me equal standing with yourself under law...If you want to read the recognition of that as bigotry, that's your business. At the moment, I'm just seeing your opposition as misguided, not the product of bigotry. It's possible this is a debate that requires bigger minds than any in here, no? 

James, I was only trying to point out that the male/female gender aspect has not always been the exclusive core of recognized relationships. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear--we're starting to reach that area where it's difficult to remain completely coherent. A failing, I know, but a human one, at least. 

It's interesting that you point out there are sound arguments to be made for marriage equality--I feel like several people are expressing a similar sentiment but not really accepting any of the ones put forward by the only person in this thread who would be directly impacted by marriage equality--me. It's entirely possible that I'm not making the arguments well, but if you believe there are arguments to be made that you could accept, I'm curious as to what they would be? 

Your use of exclamation points makes me think we're starting to prove Mollie's point here...