Sure, those things are important and currently more pressing, but don't let that fool you into thinking the gay marriage question doesn't affect heterosexuals. Marriage has been a foundation of society for thousands of years, and that's why it's a government-sanctioned institution. Don't think that redefining marriage won't change the face of our culture in years to come.

I don't presume to know enough about Ms. Sotomayor to definitively say she should or should not be confirmed, but there are certainly some troubling things in her record. It seems odd to me that someone whose rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court that much would be deemed the best candidate to join that self-same court. Her comment about Latina women usually making better decisions than white men is quite troubling. She makes it sound as though she believes her ethnicity and gender somehow make her a better person, and that sort of elitism does not strike me as a good quality for a judge to have. Her comment about policy being made in appeals court, while similarly troubling, is really only a reflection of the times in which we live. Judicial activism is dangerously rampant, and if they don't remember their places as neutral arbiters soon, we need to insist that they be elected instead of appointed, so that they answer to we the American people for what they do.

If only this were the end of it, but it won't be. Gay marriage activists will not rest until everyone is forced to accept their views. They claim it's a civil rights debate, but if it were, they would be asking for domestic partnerships, not fighting to redefine marriage. It is so stunningly hypocritical—the gay marriage movement decries religious-based opposition as trying to force their beliefs on everyone, but that is precisely what the movement wishes to do, and it has few qualms about what methods it uses to achieve that goal. But once you decide that the ends justify the means, you will find yourself standing at the top of one very slippery slope.

I think Obama is learning many things as president he didn't know as a candidate, and they seem to be influencing his policy. For that, I am grateful. It's irrelevant to me whether he made these decisions for the "right" or "wrong" reasons; all that matters is he chose correctly, because it makes no difference in the end. If he perhaps did make choices for the "wrong" reasons and it becomes evident later through a different policy, that is a separate issue and we can criticize him then. No one should be so full of hatred that you cannot give credit where credit is due; in the end you would only be hurting yourself.

Ah, just for the record, Senator Charles Grassley said they should bow, then apologize OR kill themselves. He then went on to mention that the Japanese usually killed themselves, though I'm not sure that he's correct about this. It goes back to the bushido code, and the tradition is known as seppuku, or harakiri in its more dramatic form. Still, I believe his real point was that people should take responsibility for their actions, and the Japanese are better at it than we Americans are. Sadly, it is endemic in our culture to blame everyone and everything else first, meaning we never learn from our mistakes.

The collateral damage this legislation would cause to innocent, law-abiding citizens far outweighs what little good it might do. You can ban everything that could possibly be used to kill people until you're blue in the face, but criminals and terrorists will still find a way around it.

If it's true that two government computers were infected from drudgereport,com, I don't see a problem with temporarily asking employees not to visit the site. Though if the liberal website infects a computer and the agency says nothing, that's hypocritical. To those of you who ask why the workers would be visiting the site in the first place, quick breaks to surf the web can actually increase your productivity. By switching mental gears for a few minutes, you give your mind a break, and this can enable you to stay focused longer. I do this myself when studying, or when writing, I switch off and write something fun for a bit. It really helps, and I highly recommend trying it, unless you lack the discipline to return to work when the few minutes are up.

(On another note, I'm posting this from a Macbook, so I'm happy to say I don't share the government's worries at least for now. When I run Bootcamp, I try not to go online if I can help it.)

Joe Biden would probably learn to be a little more careful with his words if the media pounced on it every time he slipped up. But it seems like he never will as long as the mainstream media protects him, even when what were once harmless gaffes have now become quite serious slip-ups. We can only hope that he will now cultivate some prudence.

We Christians believe in love and tolerance. The problem is, some of us have become tolerant of evils we ought not, whether out of convenience or misguided belief, and we damage our credibility by doing so. I do not understand why any woman in a consensual relationship with access to birth control would need to have an abortion unless her health were at significant risk. Yes, a woman should have control over her body, and she can control whether or not she has sex, or uses birth control. It is beyond me how anyone can equate abortion with self-empowerment, and as a woman, I cannot even begin to fathom the mind of mother who could kill her own child without any regrets.

This said, I don't think it was such a terrible thing for President Obama to speak at Notre Dame's commencement, though i do think several things should have happened differently. I think he would have done well to turn down the honorary degree, and leave out the politics in his speech. But I don't disagree that both sides, pro-life and pro-choice, should be able to agree that we need to reduce the number of abortions. I am not naive enough to think that pro-choice advocates can be convinced overnight, so while we pro-life believers are working on that (and according to Gallup, we are making progress!) we should at least try to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

I do, however, take exception to his remark about embryonic stem cell research and juvenile diabetes. I have been a type I diabetic for over twenty years, and have suffered numerous complications from the disease, including eye damage, nerve damage, and kidney damage. I catch anything and everything that goes around, and a simple infection can easily turn into a raging disaster for me. I currently have no health insurance and struggle to pay for the insulin and other medications I need to survive. I can only pray to God that I don't need to be hospitalized again as I have many times in the past, because there is no way I can pay for it now. I may very well be the sort of person President Obama wants to help by supporting embryonic stem cell research. The thing is, there are about a half-dozen other more promising methods being researched to cure diabetes, and none entail the ethical dilemma of embryonic stem cell research. If you are serious about seeking a cure for diabetes, I do not see how you can believe embryonic stem cell research is the best way to accomplish that.

If Ms. Pelosi has a shred of integrity left, she should apologize to the CIA and admit she made a very huge mistake by blaming them for inconsistencies in her story, and telling so many different versions in the first place. Then she should step down as Speaker of the House. Everyone makes mistakes and errors in judgement, but that does not excuse anyone, much less our elected officials, from accepting responsibility for them.