If you don’t believe we have the rule of law, I suggest you spend some time abroad, especially in places where the governments really DON’T have the rule of law. Hyperbole and exaggeration make great copy, but seriously, that’s out in center field (to avoid unfortunate political association).

On “Getting folks to vote is crucial” :

The republican party is on record as saying ‘the fewer votes cast, the better their chances of winning’. Having had in the recent past republican operatives go to jail for vote caging and signing worthless pledges not to do it again, we have historicly high levels of caging and pre-election chicanery this time around already.

It takes two sides in agreement to have peaceful and fair elections, it only takes one side to resort to election fraud. We do not currently have rule of law, we have rule by crooks instead.

a. a great turn of phrase;
b. a wee bit off base theologically;
c. certainly wrong historically; and
d. failed to make a point.

Seriously, you’re a great writer who can mix much better metaphors than that. Besides, if Palin continues her attacks on Obama, all we’re really seeing is a VP candidate acting in a the traditional role pre-election. Just because she’s been effective doesn’t mean she ought to be belittled.

Nor should Obama be belittled for his service as a “community organizer” as the Republicans have done. Getting folks to vote is crucial (just one of his roles during that time). We live in a country where fewer than 30% of voters decide what 100% of the country does, and that’s just wrong. Obama has served his community, his state, and his country well. I think that’s what John McCain was saying in his acceptance speech. The real discussion should be about the quality and length of that service, and the quality of his ideas and ideals in comparison to his opponent. I just wish we could focus on that rationally instead of barking at each other.

If marriage is merely to procreate, why don’t they try to stop old people from getting married?

These are the main objections, other than moral, that people have to gay marriage. Since they are completely bogus, the only one left is moral.

If one thinks it is moral to keep one group from doing something, in this case get married, that they themselves can do, simply because of skin color or sexual orientation, that is called bigotry. If it involves color, it is racism. If it involves age, it is ageism. If it involves the fact that they are gay, it is homophobia or anti-gay bigotry.

It really is no more complex than that.

In other words, you are wrong that people against gay marriage are not anti-gay bigots. They are, and if you oppose gay marriage, so are you.