All of these security measures have caused me to fear boarding a plane with my husband. He hasn't flown in years, but we will be flying in the near future. He totally refuses to be scanned; he says that the TSA agents can pat him down, but in his words, "If they grab my ----, I will punch them in the mouth. End of story." My husband isn't usually a violent person, but I am seriously afraid that our next trip will be cut short by arrest and assault charges.

In Scotland, a dog that bites and draws blood will be automatically put down. My husband comes from Scotland; he says that this practice is not controversial in Scotland. The laws differ from place to place in the US, but my (admittedly very limited) internet research says that a few US cities will put a dog down after the second or third bite, and that seems to be as strict as it gets in America.

I find it interesting that Scotland is more severe with dogs that bite than the US is, considering that Scotland is generally a more liberal country.

Trace Urdan:since when is any topic off limits on Ricochet? Since when are editors not allowed to voice their personal views? Mollie has started a conversation which is of interest to people. She is not abusing her position as editor at all.

Maybe there is something that I am just not getting here, but I don't understand how gay people can be held responsible for what straight people do. Straight people are the ones responsible for the vast majority of cases of child neglect and abuse. Gay people make up, at most, 5% of the population; to lay our cultural problems on their doorstep is to imbue them with a power that they don't have.

Furius Camillus: Obviously, it is possible to oppose two different things at the same time, but many so cons don't devote anywhere near the energy to opposing WIC as they do to SSM.

Those whom I know in the pro life movement consider themselves activists; they do mailing compaigns, take part in marches, man booths at the state fair, etc.... All of those activities can be considered a form of activism.

MFR: My sincere condolences for the loved ones you lost; I wish you peace and serenity.

There may be things worse than death, but I don't think that SSM is one of them-unless they make it compulsory ;) I believe in God and in an afterlife, but my understanding of God is that he wants us to be dedicated to life, but not too attached to it. That is sometimes a difficult line to walk. No matter how hard I try, I can't envision SSM being worse than the needless deaths of the great Americans who dedicate themselves to protecting us.

Also, I was in a snarky and sarcastic state of mind when I said that dead bodies are only irrelevant if you didn't know the person. I didn't mean that literally. I wish that I had responded better to the comment which stated that "dead bodies are irrelevant", but I have no idea how to respond to that comment. 

Midget Faded Rattlesnake: I am also on the fence when it comes to gay marriage; I don't believe that it will have much or any effect on most people, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe SSM would cause no end of dysfunction in the heterosexual community; even if that happened, it still wouldn't be as bad as women in combat because where there is life there is hope. A kid who is raised in a dysfunctional home can recover from the experience-it happens all the time. I don't want to minimize the trauma that children go through, but death at a young age is the ultimate trauma. Nothing else compares to it, and no one ever recovers from it. I am a cultural conservative. I care deeply about preserving the traditional family, but in order to have a culture, we must first have a country. As concerned as I am about social issues, National Security must be our main priority. WIC is definitely a threat to national security; SSM probably isn't.

Casey: you are so right when you say that ostracism isn't death. I have been a conservative in a liberal state since birth; I don't really know anything else. I love Massachusetts, and have a great deal of hope for our beautiful state.

Great post! Your wife is so well spoken, and your daughter sounds wonderful; you have every reason to be proud.

Western Chauvinist: I don't need anyone to tell me what happens to so cons in Massachusetts:) I have been dealing with it all my life. Maybe I am just thick skinned, but it doesn't faze me. Being called names by liberals is nothing new to me; one liberal once told me that I should be shot, but she wasn't typical. You can't get worked up over things like that.

Western Chauvinist: right wingers also understand the need to set priorities, right? It just seems to me that those who believe that SSM is as much or more of a threat than women in combat cannot see the forest for the trees. Even of gay marriage is wrong, it only affects a very tiny percentage of the population; women in combat affects everyone. As activists, we have to decide what priorities are, and where we will devote our energy. Those who view SSM as the main threat are pounding a fly, while a dragon lurks in the background.

I don't consider myself a libertarian; I was raised in the pro life movement in Massachusetts; being ostracized for my beliefs is nothing new. I'm just not convinced that SSM is on a par with women in combat.

Neosis: there are very, very few if any women who can hold their own with men in a combat situation. If such women existed in any real number, no one would be demanding that we lower standards.

I lived in Alaska for five years; I love frontiers women so much, but most of them are delusional, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. Sarah Palin is nowhere near as tough as Todd Palin is, and while it is kind of cute, in a way, conservative women who try to sell themselves as being just as strong as any man are being silly. Why do they feel they have to be just as strong as men in order to be worthwhile? When did being strong become the be all and end all of existence?

All soldiers must accept the fact that they could get killed, but we owe it to them to do everything we can, within reason, to help them not get killed. To force men to fight alongside unqualified women is a horrendous idea; that the women have very noble intentions only compounds the tragedy.

Drafting women was a main tenant of the ERA; if the draft ever comes back, feminists will definitely want women to be drafted.

Death is a part of life, but sending women into combat is a reckless disregard for human life. Gay men who die from aids have control over their own destinies; the male soldiers who are being forced to serve alongside unqualified women don't; their only recourse is to leave the military or not sign up in the first place. If it were just a matter of women risking their own lives, that would be one thing, but women have no right to put male soldiers in danger. The number of women who want to go into combat is very small; the percentage of soldiers who do not want women in combat is pretty large; why are male soldiers treated with such  disregard, when they far outnumber the women who want to go into battle?