Mollie, so glad you are still in! 

If anyone thinks this is a good idea and is pondering a pedometer, may join in FeliciaB's recommendation of the Fitbit?  I know it is a lot of money for what amounts to just a pedometer, but it does also count stairs climbed, it's small and easy and really accurate, and you can't beat the convenience of knowing that it will keep a log of your steps from day to day and upload them whenever you happen to get around to plugging your cable into the computer.

But really, seriously, why?  Inquiring minds really do want to know.

I am beginning to see that this should have been its own post, rather than a comment.  Sorry.  Got carried away.  Anyone have any reactions?

Finally, if marriage is about society honoring people who love each other, and love is a feeling that one is overcome by and one cannot control, so that I might be swept up into a relationship with someone new, male or female, next week and expect that relationship to be honored, we are honoring a lie about human relationships. This is because, as Christ showed us, love isn't really warm fuzzy feelings, although they are part of it.  Love is putting another person above oneself, "laying down one's life" for another. 

This is the heart of what is wrong with the idea of SSM: that marriage has to do with honoring a feeling between two people.  It instead should honor a deep and sacrificial commitment.  By saying SSM is acceptable, we say that you should be able to be married to anyone you like, which means that if you don't like your husband this week, you should walk out on your marriage. My daughter has a friend whose parents felt that way: "We no longer felt in love, and it was our duty to pursue our own fulfillment, so we divorced."

I think the real reason to be against SSM has to do with the natures of men and women.  The Bible tells us that God said "it is not good for man to be alone" and created woman. No matter how figuratively you take the Genesis story, the fundamental point is that men and women are complementary to one another in very important ways.

Furthermore, marriage for Christians is an important image of Christ.  Husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church, laying down his life for her.  This means that marriages demonstrate something absolute about the basis of reality that cannot be demonstrated by a counterfeit kind of marriage. It's important for children, but also for adults, to be able to see this kind of life being lived out around them, and to the extent that we pretend that some other kind of relationship is marriage, we cloud God's communication to us.

In my experience, there is something deeply moving, satisfying, and inspiring about seeing a man love his wife.  I think we can all see this.  Men become most truly men in that relationship, and that is why we hold it sacred.

I am, of course, firmly against SSM, and I agree that it is ideal for children to grow up in a family with a father and a mother.  But I am not sure that the need for this kind of family structure for children is the most compelling argument against SSM. 

The argument  has the advantage of being empiric rather than theological, but as an empiric argument it has the disadvantage that people can cite articles (however flawed) whose data supports the opposite position, or say that the data will be forthcoming in a few decades when SSM has been around longer, or, perhaps most importantly for them, cite their own limited experience that runs contrary to the principle.  In my daughter's circle, for example, I think her friend with two moms is being parented far more effectively than most of her friends who have fathers and mothers around.  A friend of hers who was adopted by a single mother is also being raised better than lots of those with traditional family structures.

Lucy Pevensie, for those who don't recognize the name, is the youngest of the four Pevensie children who go through the wardrobe into Narnia in the Narnian series.  I was looking for a name that was frankly female and connoted Christianity and ideally Anglicanism, and Lucy was a natural choice.

Lucy is a bit of a  spiritually presumptuous identity for me, because she is often the one to see Aslan (a Christ figure) before the others, and of course they are all Kings and Queens. But I like the fact that when Aslan gives out gifts to the children, she gets a magic healing liquid; since I am a physician, the name seemed somehow  appropriate. 

But you only just joined.  You have so much of value to say--I started looking out for your name within a day or two of your starting to post. Your recommendations to Amy about job searching were just brilliant, for example.  What took you so long?  I hate to think how many other insights of yours we've missed over the years. 

By the way, I agree with you, Indaba, on the comments that make me laugh or nod.  The comments really make this site.  If it were just a blog of interesting writers, it wouldn't be so great; but it actually works as a kind of long, pleasant cocktail party conversation.  Oh, and Troy, can you point me toward the bar, please?

Hey Casey, you've got to offer a prize for most improved.  We don't want people to get discouraged and quit. We want people to get inspired.  (By the way,  unless you count zero steps for the first day, I have set myself up to lose a most improved prize).

Day 1: I hadn't started. no pedometer.

Day 2 :17,874

Day 3: 12,237

Day 4: 15,271

Day 5: 11,695

Day 6: 18,657

Day 7: 11,318

Day 8: 10,746

Day 9: 14,013

Day 10: 13,885

Day 11: 18,645

Not a lawyer here, but as far as I know, the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship.  So I can't really see how Switzerland calling her a citizen changes anything about whether the US calls her a citizen. 

I think there are lots of other reasons to have opposed Rep. Bachmann's campaign.  I can't see how this is important.

I totally love this. I wish I had the nerve to put it up on Facebook.

Well, I'd totally love it if this were going to happen, but it isn't. In the meantime,  government has gotten a lot more meddlesome since my grandmother was raised by her great aunt (after her mother died).  It might actually be important in the modern world to have some kind of official recognition of that household's permanence.  All kinds of households do exist; why can't we acknowledge the fact, disconnected from sexuality?

Don't forget all of us in the Ricochet Step challenge, too!  It's probably not too late to join. 

Of course, that's not good enough for the gay activists.  Civil unions aren't good enough for the gay activists; they want full marriage.  But perhaps it would be good enough for at least some of the Rico libertarians?

I have a dear (female)  friend who has lived for decades with the same woman. They do not identify as lesbian, but they are a permanent household.  Why should they be discriminated against compared with an overt lesbian couple? 

I don't know. I just don't think that there are a lot of hardcore lefty urban liberals who weren't going to vote before this.

I totally agree with you on everything you said here. I have one question (and maybe I'll post it on the Member Feed.)  Kevin Williamson, years ago, wrote an article in NR suggesting that, instead of civil unions, the state should recognize some kind of "permanent household" (my wording, not his). I'd have to look up the article to get more details, but I have wondered about this in the past.  I mean, if great-aunt Sally moves in with your family to take care of your kids, why shouldn't she be eligible to be on your insurance just like your spouse?  If they're going to recognize "civil unions," why should you have to be sexually involved to be eligible?