Absolutely on the marriage penalty. I'd love it if some politician would say "Of course gay couples should be able to get married. That way they will be hit with the marriage tax penalty and finally pay their fair share." Here's the issue in a nut shell. Same sex couples want the opportunity to marry so they can increase their tax liability, without a corresponding increase in income, and want to decrease the number of times they have conjugal relations with their partner. Forgive me for being suspicious of their motives.

What does marriage have to do with enjoying oneself? The fact is that marriage laws exist because the state has asserted an interest in the relationship between a man and a woman because that relationship can produce children, and those laws are largely designed to protect the interests of those children. Also, if marriage laws aren't about children, why do states have laws saying a brother and sister can't marry, and first cousin marriages are also illegal in most states. What is the point to that if it's not about offspring?

I was at the game. It wasn't even as close as the final score would indicate. Xavier held a 63-27 lead, and Georgia scored a majority of their points during garbage time.

Everyone knows that when Sentinel Prime's ship landed on Mars, it covered the flag.

The letter that Mike Adams quoted mentioned that an employee attended one of Frank Turek's seminars and then later complained to CISCO management about Turek. I believe in one of Mike Adams' earlier columns said that this employee, who had no complaint about the actual seminar, google searched Frank Turek, saw that he wrote a book about marrage. This employee didn't like the book, so complained about it to management. The letter Mike quotes says that the fact that a CISCO employee complained about it shows that it affected the work environment because of the complaint. That's crazy. Is this what it comes to? Will employees now spy on each other in their private lives and report anything they don't like to management? If it's not...

BINGO! I've been saying that for years. Another thing to consider, those who were anti-slavery didn't want the slaves to be included in the count. The pro-slavery side wanted all slaves included in the count.

Your arguments should apply, not to the Supreme Court case, but to the actions of the California legislature in passing this law. The SC should have been limited to the general question of whether or not state (or any) governments have the authority to restrict the sale of any items to minors. Think of it this way. Holding your position, one could say that state governments have the authority to restrict actions of minors, and to impose restrictions it wouldn't impose on adults, however, in this particular case, the sale of video games to minors, that restriction is unwarranted. So in closing, banning the sale of video games to minors may be a waste of time, or it may be a good idea. Either way, that discussion should be at the...

Your arguments don't really apply to the California law. Under it, any parent could still buy the game and give it to their child. The sale of video games weren't banned. There are any number of things that the government says those under 18 (or 21) are not allowed to purchase. Why is it wrong to include certain video games in this category?

Patrice, This is certainly one of the more brilliant comments I've read on this site. You must be a regular reader of Thomas Sowell. I share your view on the adoption concern. Adoption should be focused on what is best for the child. It shouldn't be thought of as a "right", as though a couple is going down to the local pet store to get a puppy. This is a child we are talking about, and experience has shown that children are generally better off in a stable home with a mother and father. The adoption isn't about making people feel good, and when same-sex adoption rights are discussed, we've lost sight of the fact that we are talking about children. Those who are denied in their quest to adopt a child need to remember that it's...

The issue isn't about what kids can and can't see. It's about what they can buy without a parent's consent. Even under the law, kids could play the games, they just couldn't buy them on their own. What is the big deal about that?