Of course he was only charged b/c he wasn't wearing his blue/gold gang colors at the time

Whoa, hold up. Doesn't this journalist know that Jesus called xtians to hate on gay families--not to feed and clothe the poor.

If you had the exact same opinions they have, then we'd have no reason to come here. Besides, contrary to many of the admonishments in these comments, it isn't the far right that we hope to persuade--but rather the middle-of-the-road, indifferent, albeit reasonable voter/constituent. He's scratching his head, innocently wondering why the "homosexuals" --strange people he believes he doesn't know--want to marry just to screw around and not even maintain the appearance of being an exclusive couple. We're winning because of efforts like Savage's "It gets better videos;" though it's much slower going than it needs to be because of Savage's tendency to talk about how he and his husband are banging some third guy from both ends--or talking about "whipping up some santorum in Santorum"... Savage isn't above criticism.

Those things generally are covered up by omission--until we have scandals like those in the Atlanta school system. We either want to win or not. Do you think that if it were proven that women generally can't parallel park as well as men that we'd stop issuing licenses to women--or kick them out of the service for not being as able to meet the physical challenges of service. Clearly not--we changed the standard to accommodate. But the selling point could not have been: let women in the service, so we can lower the physical standards for some soldiers. Perhaps the victim/shame-inspired, alienated, ghetto culture that we like to call "gay" is less-inclined to monogamy. (I suspect that the next generation will be more like straight folks generally are now) Even so, it's simply bad politics to promote non-monogamy if you're speaking for the broader gay community.

In politics, I'm a pragmatist, and so I agree that Savage's push for non-monogamy is a bad thing politically. I also share your personal view on monogamy. Even more,--legal or not--, I do not recognize or respect "open" relationships as the genuine article. Something that should concern only my closest, coupled friends. In the public sphere, we should not differentiate: no one else's relationship is my business. I hope you continue to offer such candid opinions despite being admonished for not saluting the pre-approved, "correct" answers gays are supposed to have.

They don't need to form one--the Libertarian Party is largely fiscally conservative and socially liberal--some disagree on abortion (same indiv liberty/it's murder divide). It's all about freedom and personal responsibility

Obama the Butcher--priceless.

Does this mean that she will no longer advocate trying children as adults--anyone under 21?

This is an interesting post. Conservatives tend to think that college is only about learning a trade--and they tend to conflate and confuse that with getting an education. For that matter, they confuse memorizing a bunch of crap as learned--whether it be from their bible or a history teacher that tells them exactly what a particular historical event means. George W with his business degree is the perfect example of an ignorant man with poor reasoning skills who was thought of as educated merely because his daddy bought him a seat in a prestigious university and he got the piece of paper. I agree fat studies is a ridiculous theme to organize a standard program of studies around, but one can still come out of this program with an education, learning to examine a particular issue within the various disciplines: history, art, literature, biology, philosophy, anthropology etc. Queer studies certainly would fall into a similar category--though queer musicology would be a little too narrow to gain any real reasoning or comparative skills, I suspect. That said, I hope it doesn't catch on.

No chance in hell. Perhaps in Alabama, but not New York. He'll lose. Oh, Your comment program isn't allowing Open Id, forcing me to my twitter account.