The sociological theme in this editorial is correct, even if it greatly pained the author to reach that conclusion. (Presumably, he is pro-life and extremely anti-gay, or at least anti-gay marriage. Good for him)

But it's also sociological profound that small government conservatives immediately, and without the slightest hesitation, flip on the subject of government interjecting their steely eyes and mandates into the private lives regarding reproductive and marital rights.

(Sidebar: Do you think there is any correlation between the angry diatribes of the Right, especially that emanating out of the Deep South, and the fact that there is more divorce, infidelity and swinging singles per capita in this region and with...

The sociological theme in this editorial is correct, even if it greatly pained the author to reach that conclusion. (Presumably, he is pro-life and extremely anti-gay, or at least anti-gay marriage. Good for him)

But it's also sociological profound that small government conservatives immediately, and without the slightest hesitation, flip on the subject of government interjecting their steely eyes and mandates into the private lives regarding reproductive and marital rights.

The sucking hyporcrits.

Fortunately, the nice thing about bountiful hypocrisy is that the youth of the nation who grow up amidst this social failing, prove to not repeat the same mistakes of their forefathers. Hence the reason women can vote...

One thing you can't help but notice when perusing Comments to this editorial, like so many found at Townhall.com, is the extent and the ubiquitous nature of the conservative anger in this country, most of which I believe is entirely self-induced.

I can't help but think if you start everyday believing that Obama is not actually a US citizen, but a true socialist and that his party wants to turn the US into Europe, or that liberalism in general is a legitimate sickness, that abortion is murder no matter what, that homosexuality is not genetic, that the world is going to Hades solely because Democrats are in power today and that only conservative thought matters, you are probably going to listen to and pass on similar rants all...

Ignorance is Bliss, Until it's Not!
Hubris and incompetence, likes AIDS, shows no loyalty to any specific persuasion. And that is just as true for politicians and their adherents.

Shrub lost his Congressional majorities, and his approval rating and proud legacy, because of this inevitable bipartisan maladay. Now it's Obama's turn at the wheel of delusion, which has turned the mirror on himself. (Standing broken-hearted in the background are Reid and Pelosi, tears hardly hidden.)

But that painful hubristic pendalum is going to swing back again and smack conservatives and the GOP right across the face one more time if they read yesterday's Boston Tea Leaves any diferently than this: swing voting Independents were fed...

Ignorance is Bliss, Until it's Not!
Hubris and incompetence, likes AIDS, shows no loyalty to any specific persuasion. And that is just as true for politicians and their adherents.

Shrub lost his Congressional majorities, and his approval rating and proud legacy, because of this inevitable bipartisan maladay. Now it's Obama's turn at the wheel of delusion, which has turned the mirror on himself. (Standing broken-hearted in the background are Reid and Pelosi, tears hardly hidden.)

But that painful hubristic pendalum is going to swing back again and smack conservatives and the GOP right across the face one more time if they read yesterday's Boston Tea Leaves any diferently than this: swing voting Independents were fed...

Hubris and incompetence, likes AIDS, shows no loyalty to any specific persuasion. And that is just as true for politicians and their adherents.

Shrub lost his Congressional majorities, and his approval rating and proud legacy, because of this inevitable bipartisan maladay. Now it's Obama's turn at the wheel of delusion, which has turned the mirror on himself. (Standing broken-hearted in the background are Reid and Pelosi, tears hardly hidden.)

But that painful hubristic pendalum is going to swing back again and smack conservatives and the GOP right across the face one more time if they read yesterday's Boston Tea Leaves any diferently than this: swing voting Independents were fed up with both liberals and...

It's the MEANING here, stupid!

And since the meaning is ever-changing, so too is the definition and significance of labeling the country either "center-right" or "center-left". Fortunately, the country has never been nor ever will be primarily liberal or conservative. (I do find it quite funny that conservatives can't stop but shilling the idea that the country is dogmatically moving "center-right". I guess that's what you do when you are the opposition party out of power.)

What is telling and what matters is how the various platforms of each party change with the times, and how new and old voters, find these changes appealing or not.

If the Dems push more government involvement, spending and intrusion, on top...

Why be the kind of voter that is growing faster than any other, a trend that will hopefully result in a true 3rd Party someday. There is both an intellectual and an obvious rationale here.

The intellectual answer is based on the statistical impossibility that essentially one half of the vast American populous -- the same half -- over any 25 year period of time is going to be substantially correct in their decision making to a material degree compared to the other half of the population. Both parties have fundamentally and consistently staked out the core tenants within party platforms and promoted candidates who adhere to these platforms (for the most part). Consequently, the labels "conservative" or "liberal" are uniquely...

Try re-reading my retort to Jackson's editorial. But this time, try doing so without the pre-conceived notion that I (a married, religious white male who fully supports gay marriage) actually fully supports gay marriage. I would suggest you try to also forget your own anger at gays (my preconception based on your past posts) and biased objections to gay marriage, but I would probably be asking too much here.

Try then to see if you can comprehend how my satire was an attempt to ridicule the ridiculous of Jackson's causality arguments in the same way that many non-religious people back in the first half of the 20th century, who were very unhappy with the idea of interracial marriage, did similarly despite what you seem to...

Just imagine if 49 years ago some holier-than-thou bigot said – religious objection aside – the good white people of the country, who may be secular, should really be very concerned about a black man and a white woman marrying because:

1)It would devalue the “true commitment” of all normal same-race marriages.

2)Fidelity for all of these normal same-race marriages would decline because we all know the black man is more promiscuous.

3)Marriage longevity for normal same-race marriages is going to suffer, too, because of the very transient nature of the black man setting the example for all others.

4)Mormons the country over will march to City Hall and demand that they be allowed to marry all their under-aged...