Gay Marriage

I am AGAINST "gay marriage" but FOR "gay marriage." What? The problem is that "marriage" means different things to different people. I am AGAINST "gay religious marriage." Politicians should not be able to tell a Catholic priest that he is REQUIRED to marry two people of the same gender. I am FOR "gay judicial marriage." Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. If a partner is on life support, the other partner should be able to make decisions (without filling out a power of attorney.) --- (Half of) the problem is that religious folks knee-jerk to "gay marriage" as if the government is going to automatically start butting into their cherished religious ceremonies. The (simultaneous other half of) the problem is gay people aren't sensitive to how cherished marriage is to traditional folks. I think gay people would be shocked if Catholics started saying "We should have a Catholic bah mitzfah!" Granted, "civil union" sounds less romantic than "marriage" - and "gay judicial marriage" sounds just as boring as "civil union." But that's what it is - if you're protesting for equal (legal) rights - go for those - you can always have your "romantic marriage" as a separate ceremony that is unrecognized by the government. (Which is what everyone else does anyway.) ---- So I am AGAINST "gay traditional-religious marriage" but FOR "Gay Judicial Marriage."

Sequestration

Seriously? The "most working" plan is the one that was intended to be so bad that it would be horrific if it happened? And yet, Dems and Reps seem to agree that it's better than compromising (which would look bad to their voter/supporters.) I thought they were going to do a last minute "compromise but moan about it." But now I think the "temporary sequester" is going to be a "permanent sequester". Which is fine, I don't think we needed a giant military anyway. (But I do think we need the jobs making weapons that we'd never use...)