http://wakingupnow.com/blog/they-mapped-the-human-genome-theres-no-gay-gene

Beachbum, you're just showing you don't understand what" mapping the genome" means. It does NOT mean they've identified every gene. After all the genome was mapped in 2003, but scientists didn't find the nearsightedness gene until 2010. Or the curly-hair gene until 2009. More info here: http://wakingupnow.com/blog/they-mapped-the-human-genome-theres-no-gay-gene

You're right to suggest they go to the library because that book IS NO LONGER IN PRINT. If this book is so key to understanding gay political strategy, then why does it seem unable to generate enough sales to stay in print. More paranoia.

Army Wife, I'm afraid you're mistaken. From footnote 11 of the SC decision: Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes…extends only to the integrity of the white race… Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races." That last sentence shows the Supreme Court did NOT rely on the law saying ONLY whites could not intermarry other races.

Actually, the ACLU often defends Christians. But Mike Adams has never been afraid to lie when the truth is inconvenient. http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

No worries. I'm always happy when it gets more viewings.

HEY JEFFREY! (Shouting above the din.) Thanks for promoting my Maggie Gallagher cartoon. I've got another one dealing with this asinine notion that current marriage laws don't discriminate against gays. http://wakingupnow.com/blog/discrimination-certainly-not

Actually the Puritans weren't seeking religious freedom for anyone but themselves, and they certainly weren't advancing a goal of religious tolerance. They were just as intolerant as the Christians they were escaping.

Another post promising to talk about where to cut spending but lacking in concrete, specific plans that add up to a significant, clearly quantified reduction. Is that really too much to ask?

This article would have been a lot more convincing if Limbaugh had bothered to suggest specific spending cuts.