Obama's brand-name: 'Trillion,' think

I'm loving this moment!

Pretty soon it will only be Rush, Beck and Palin in the lounge at the local Applebee's in Alabama rousing the GOPer base of about 20 teabaggers.

The party of Limbaugh (GOP) did this to themselves and now all they lack is a crying towel as they tearfully wave goodbye to the few remaining Reagan Democrats. They primaried out nearly all of their moderates and can't win national election with their extremist base.
Good riddance to all them!

It will take decades to undo all the damage they've done to themselves.

The only reason Obama is considered "radically left" by the GOP is because the Teabaggin' GOP has gone off the right margin of the page and is wandering aimlessly...

2009 GOP - Tiny people with Tiny brains

* * * * *
Posted by: DrainYou | April 29, 2009 4:46 PM
.
Now you are lying to yourself as well as everyone else. The reason any rational person would consider the Democratic Party “radically left” is because it has shifted leftward after abandoning numerous former centrist positions on social, political and economic issues. By itself, growing a nanny state in size, function, and trillions of dollars in expenditures, all in the name of some perverted sense of egalitarianism, constitutes a substantial shift to the left. The many places it favors insinuating the State into the lives of individual citizens, and into the very fabric of the American family, were never part of its social agendum twelve years ago. These, too, represent a leftward shift. Its policies of insinuating the government into the market, as a player as well as a referee, is beginning to take on unprecedented proportions.
.
So, go ahead. Keep lying to yourself and everyone else. You know that repeating a lie often enough will help mislead the gullible into believing you. You had better watch your audience, however; because some of us can see through you B.S. You had better stick to DailyKos or MoveOn.org like you normally do. They’re foolish enough to bite.
.
And you call GOPers people with tiny brains? Starfish have a better claim to having a brain than you or anyone who might believe you. (Hint: Starfish don’t have brain cells.)

."Its policies of insinuating the government into the market, as a player as well as a referee, is beginning to take on unprecedented proportions."

Nope Sorry John W. The new places you claim that the Democrats have insinuated themsleves into the market are the places that they inherited from the previous administraion. The banks, the auto industry, AIG and all the rest are due to the actions of the Republican Bush Administration. Bush got the government into banking, insurance and automaking, not Obama. The Obama Administration is managing the programs Bush created. Bush left Obama the responsibility to determine if the automakers plans were viable, this isn't something Obama requested or created.
Vent your anger in the right direction, at your own party.
Oh, and John, please don't bother responding if you can't do it without a bunch of childish name calling. Thanks.

* * * * *
Posted by: Mel | April 30, 2009 2:39 PM
.
You have stated many, but not all, of the reasons I can’t stand Bush. They are also many of the reasons I didn’t vote for McCain.
.
But Republican complicity doesn’t absolve Democrats of aiding and abetting, and then leading, the government’s intrusion into the market. The Democrats voted en masse for Bush’s TARP bill. In more recent history, they have gone beyond even Bush’s lame TARP bailout in insinuating the government into the market. The Democrats are the ones that came up with a new stimulus package that even has the Republicans in Congress retching. And now they have a new plan to double the debt AGAIN in the next eight years; and this plan involves insinuating the federal government into the market and everyone’s lives in a manner heretofore unknown.
.
For the last time, folks, you can’t blame Bush for everything that is going to go bad. It’s time to take some responsibility for the here and now. As I see it, the Democrats are in power and they are the ones who have us on the road to serfdom.
.
So, Mel, are you really trying to tell me that the Democratic Party hasn’t undergone a substantial leftward shift within the last twelve years? If you answer “No,” your credibility will be in the dirt. If you answer yes, then you agree with the only point I was trying to make.
.
And - BTW - which party do you think is mine? I voted for Bob Barr for President. If you don’t recall, our first fur-ball was over your dislike for my Libertarian viewpoint on the federal government’s usurpation of powers.
.
Oh, and one more thing, Mel. With regard to your expectation that I’ll resort to childish name calling: Put a sock in it.

John W, I guess I missed in your first post where you said Bush and the Republicans were at all to blame.

I will answer your question John,and I expect only a nasty personal attack in response, as you have already pre-emptively hinted at it. No, I don't think the Democrats have shifted significantly left in the past 12 years. I think they are still in about the same place, talking about many of the same issues, healthcare, supporting the middle and lower classes in tough times, tax fairness, promoting peace and diplomacy.

Yes, extrordinary measures have been taken to deal with the extrordinary economic situation we find ourslves in. Measures, as you have admitted, that have come from both parties. To say that it reveals a Democratic lurch to the left is just not borne out by the facts. Obama has been clear that even though he has been handed these programs, he doesn't envision them being permanent. He has repeatedly said that the government shouldn't be in the auto business. The TARP funds to the banks are temporary, and in fact, the Obama Administration has strongly resisted calls from many economists to outright nationalize some banks as a result of the crisis, he's strongly rejected that suggestion a number of times, in the face of alot of criticism. I'm sure that you think that's all a sham, but those are the facts John. Ignore them if you like, remain willfully ignorant of them if you like, but that doesn't stop them from being facts.

It's too bad that you aren't sure enough of you arguments to be able to have a discussion without name calling and immature statements like "put a sock in it." You just make yourself look bad with those John. They don't gain you respect, they don't make you look smart, they don't further your cause. There's too much childishness on these boards, and I just don't want to contibute to it anymore. If you don't want to have a mature discussion, that's fine, but I won't be responding. Have a nice day.

* * * * *
Posted by: Mel | April 30, 2009 4:48 PM
.
In the first place, you have absolutely no standing or right to chide me on my “put a sock in it” remark. It was you, without any prompting from me, who peremptorily took a first shot across my bow with your despicable warning against the use of childhood language. That comment was contemptible, and deserved a much colder reply than the one I eventually served in return.
.
In the second place, my first comments to “Drain You” weren’t intended to serve as either a defense or rebuke against either party. I simply took “Drain You” to task for his self-congratulatory and distorted view of the Democratic Party as only appearing to move to the left because of the rightward movement of Republicans. This is why I made no disparaging mention of the Republican administration in drawing this country into the market as a player. Surely, anyone with a command of the English language could reason from my remarks that I disfavored the government involvement in the market as a player regardless of who was responsible for the misstep. In truth, as we seem to agree, both parties were responsible for the TARP legislation, as they are now in other related bailouts. The Democrats favor this activity with even more relish than Republicans.
.
In the third place, I have no need to offer any disparaging comment against your assessment of the Democratic Party, other than to say you are woefully wrong in making it. That you cannot see how far the Democratic Party has moved to the left in the last twelve years speaks volumes about your judgment; and it does so in a manner that no vulgar or overtly disparaging remark could match for disapprobation of your senses. Your examples are rebuked by historical fact.
.
Take healthcare, for example. Hillary-care died in a Democrat controlled Congress in 1993. Democrats were loath to again mention the subject of a national or universal health care system until the drums of political campaign were heard again during Bush’s tenure in office. I hardly believe that demonstrates any degree of consistency on the issue. Even then, the proposals now - and certainly the proposals that Hillary made during her campaign - make the Hillary care of the early ‘90s seem tame by comparison. The rhetoric of the 21st Century would focus on more than simply forcing larger companies to provide health insurance (as Hillary-care had proposed).
.
Even aside from the healthcare issue, Obama and other Democrats in Congress bear just as much responsibility as Bush and Co. for their support of TARP and the other bailouts. Democrat support for it was overwhelming; so much so, in fact, that it would have failed if left to the Republican camp alone. And now, Obama and his minions in Congress seem bent on continuing to pour even more money into bailouts and giving the federal government both ownership and control interests in many large companies. Thus, rather than reversing the ill-conceived trend of the Bush administration, they are pushing it even further. With a Democrat controlled Congress and White House, it seems obvious that Democrats could reverse this trend if they believed it wrong.
.
I won’t even mention the many measures advocated by Democrats for the insinuation of the federal government into the nuclear family. You failed to dispute that such things exist. However, it need not detain us long. The foregoing already demonstrates that your view of your beloved Democratic Party is shaded more by your attachment to it than your attention to history, of which the latter is quite half-hearted.

Oh, John ,against my better judgement I'll take the bait.

"I won’t even mention the many measures advocated by Democrats for the insinuation of the federal government into the nuclear family."

What are you refering to? Allowing gay marriage? No, that can't be, you are libertarian. A libertarian couldn't possibly consider allowing citizens to decide for themselves what the "nuclear family" consists of, and allowing them greater freedom to legally protect their nuclear families as insinuating the federal government into the nuclear family. So that can't possibly be it, could it? So what are you talking about John?

Oh, and as long as I've made the mistake of responding to you again, let me pass along this link. You seem to be harboring a mistaken impression of the healthcare reform that is under consideration at this time.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/Health_Care_Reform_090413.html

The plan being discussed is , in fact, rather similar to the Hillary care proposal. In fact, the 1993 Clinton plan was somewhat more far reaching, and radical.

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/119/9/945

Perhaps your mistaken view that the Democrats have lurched far to the left comes from your failurre to realize how far to the right the Republicans have lurched in that same 12 years. 12 years ago would any Republican have openly supported the use of torture, as many on the right do now? 12 years ago the tax rate on the highest earners was at the same level as it would be under Obama's proposed tax increase. At that time it was accepted by the Republican controlled Congress. Now they say that very same tax rate is "socialism" and hold their little "tea bag" protests. Republican Governor Rick Perry openly discusses seccession. Middle of the road Senator Arlen Specter, considered pretty much a moderate by both parties, says that the Republican Party has shifted hard right. One party has been radicalized John, you've just mistaken which one.

Actually, Mel, the gay marriage issue is part of it. Same-sex marriage proponents don’t simply want same sex marriages to occur. Same-sex couples can already get “married” in the sense that they can have a “wedding” (secular or otherwise), declare to their relevant communities that they are spouses, and then live and hold themselves out as such. No, same-sex marriage advocates want GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION for same sex marriages. Otherwise the whole thing to them is a pointless exercise. They want the same rights and benefits that all heterosexual couples obtain as a matter of law for their marital status.
.
This position raises Libertarians’ hackles in two different ways. In the first place (as you correctly pointed out), Libertarians want to keep government entirely away from defining interpersonal relationships. That means they seek the repeal of all laws regarding marriage and divorce, including all laws that provide special rights and benefits based on marriage status. That way, everyone has the right to define their own partners, families and interpersonal relationships. In the second place, Libertarians don’t believe it is the place for government to be handing out benefits based on marriage. Government is supposed to be limited to defending the country’s inhabitants and enforcing freedom and equality - period. That doesn’t include functioning as the gravy-train for every special interest group that comes along asking for special favors or benefits. So, in short, Libertarians want state sanctioned same-sex marriage to the same degree they want state sanctioned heterosexual marriage; which is to say, not at all.
.
But, back to the point from which you deviated: The Democratic Party’s support for government recognized same sex marriage makes it certainly more leftist than it was before (if we are talking about the “egalitarian vs. tradition” left-right scale that is popular today). And that’s true, regardless of, and entirely apart from any value judgment one makes about the issue. No one can legitimately argue that government sanctioned “acceptance” of same sex marriage doesn’t constitute an incrementally greater egalitarian, and hence leftist, position than the before.
.
Furthermore, strong support for same-sex marriage among Democrats is a relatively recent position. Back in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, Democrats and Libertarians simply spoke out for tolerance toward gays and lesbians. In those days “tolerance” didn’t mean acceptance; it meant forbearance, patience and “leave-them-aloneness.” It meant, you make your way in life, I’ll make my way, and we won’t go to war if one of us thinks theirs is the better way. The newer position in favor of state sanctioned same-sex marriage, however, changes all that. The new position demands not merely tolerance, but acceptance under sanction of the law.
.
Moving along to the next issue, I still believe you incorrectly equate the position of the Democrats today on welfare-state programs, including health care, to their positions on those issues 12 years ago. You ignore the fact that Hillary-care went down in flames at the hand of a Democrat controlled Congress in 1993. If Democrats then couldn’t support a Hillary-care system, support for an even more governmentally intrusive system today certainly represents a shift in Democrat policy. One Democrat, Hillary or otherwise, doesn’t make for the whole policy. Congress’ rejection of the plan is more indicative of the Democrat’s position then, compared to the Democrat Congress’ view of it today. Thus, today’s plan represents a leftward shift.
.
In addition, as mentioned, the new plans really are more intrusive into the lives of individuals than even Hillary-care would have made it. The new ideas being batter around today include making health care compulsory for everyone. Hillary-care of 1992 and 1993 wouldn’t have done that. Hence, the new plans are much more intrusive and collective - and thus more egalitarian in a socialist sense - than they ever were.
.
And, no, my views on the Democrats are not shaded by the fact that the Republicans have moved to the right. I was looking at the Democrats where they are today as compared to where they were 12 to 20 years ago.
.
Your examples are hardly proof to the contrary. The approval of torture by some in the Republican administration - but by no means all or even most Republicans, Conservatives or non-Democrats - is only a right shift if we re-define the “right,” not as the traditionalists and capitalists, but as statists. Even then, it is an anomaly. Support for torture has no traditional support or roots in conservatism or the Republican Party. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Daddy Bush didn’t sanction torture.
.
You also misunderstand conservatives and libertarians concerning the interplay of taxing and spending if you think they believe socialism consists of higher taxation. Tax rates don’t determine whether a government program can be characterized as socialist pr not. It is, instead, the object of spending that determines whether a given program constitutes some form of socialism. Socialism isn’t simply wealth deprivation. It is as system of collectivized wealth distribution or redistribution from a central government to effectuate some sense of social justice. For example, the welfare system, earned income tax credits and the newly proposed health care system all have the features of collectivization and wealth redistribution that make them socialist programs. In each case, distribution of the benefits is entirely disproportionate to the recipient’s contributions, and payments are based on the notion that some level of material equality is needed to insure social justice.
.
I don’t feel like defending Governor Perry. However, my understanding is that he did not advocated secession. He simply said that the federal government was getting so intrusive into state prerogatives and individuals’ lives that he understood why some might feel like seceding. Understanding a position and advocating it are not the same.
.
Specter is in self-preservation mode. A month ago he wasn’t singing the same tune. I suspect his defection from Republican ranks might have something to do with the fact that his chances of re-election on a Republican ticket are dismal, and that that he was promised full senatorial seniority as a Democrat by Harry Reid. I further disagree with your characterization of him as “middle of the road.” His consistent “big spender” voting record belies that idea.
.
Consequently, I reject your suggestion that I have misjudged which party has become radicalized. As I said before, I wasn’t judging the direction of Democrats based on their differences with Republicans. Nor did I ever say that Democrats have become radicalized more recently. I simply said they have significantly shifted to the left. The radicalization of the Democratic Party took place in 1972 with the nomination of George McGovern. They have only shifted more to the left since then.

John w, let me ask you one question: Are you legally married, or have you, as a staunch libertain refused the "gravy train' of legal recognition of your committed relationship?

* * * * *
Posted by: Mel | May 1, 2009 10:06 PM
.
Questions about my personal life and practices are too intrusive to bear from a faceless stranger. The personal details of my life are irrelevant to the only topic of discussion which, heretofore, has never been anything other than the nature and trends of the Democratic Party. Answering the question, as posed, would only furnish grounds to take this discussion off on a more irrelevant tangent. Thus, you question is politely refused.
.
If you doubt that what I have said is the official position of Libertarians, the National Libertarian Party, or the California Libertarian Party, I will be happy to give you references to double-check the veracity of my statements.

Mighty tasty gravy, isn't it John? Don't hog it all for yourself, share it with your homosexual neighbors.

The position of the Liberatrian Party, while interesting, is really rather irrelevant to our discussion. We're talking about the Democrats and Republicans. The opposition to gay marriage from the Republican Party and parts of the Democratic Party has nothing to do with the libertarian objection to state recognition of marriage as an institution. Quite the opposite. The opposition reflects a deep desire for the government, at the state and federal level to define the specifics of what the nuclear family is and is not. This makes your whole discussion rather irrelevant, and in fact, quite wrong. It is those who oppose legal recognition of gay marriage that wish to intrude on the nuclear family. If anything, the the desire of many Democrats to give more people the liberty to take part in the legal right to have their domestic partnerships legally recognized, and to remove institutionalized governmental discrimination on that right, is a step toward libertarianism, not against it. Allowing gay marriage is not a step toward state control of the family relationship, but a step away from it.

* * * * *
Posted by: Mel | May 3, 2009 12:42 PM
.
1. I am not on any gravy-train, your speculation notwithstanding. My personal life is simply none of your freakin’ business. I refuse such intrusions, and I refrain from such intrusions myself. That you didn’t expect to be refused an answer from a privacy loving Libertarian is your own fault.
.
2. No, Mel, we we’re not talking about Democrats and Republicans. My original post in this thread was made for the explicit purpose of removing the Republican Party from the picture and looking entirely at the Democratic Party. It is YOU, and only YOU who keep dragging the Republican Party into this. You do so because you can’t make a straight faced argument without a straw-man or whipping boy, which the Republican Party supplies in every instance. Or, perhaps, it’s because you view the entire political panorama in binary mode. Your lenses are scored with the image of the two-party system. In reality, the Republican Party is entirely irrelevant to the points I made.
.
3. In fact, Mel, you alone have made the value judgments I explicitly tried to avoid. My whole point was the leftward shift of the Democratic Party. I wasn’t trying to make value judgments about gay marriage. Rather, my point was to demonstrate that the Democratic Party’s support for state sanctioned same-sex marriage has moved them leftward. That is not a value judgment about same-sex marriage. It is an observation about the Democratic Party. Greater recognition of equality, by definition, is more egalitarian. This is a truism. If greater egalitarianism is characteristic of the “left” then official, state recognition of the equality of same-sex and heterosexual marriage, which has not previously occurred in the history or traditions of this country, is certainly more egalitarian and, thus, further left.
.
4. The rest of your analysis falls flat on its face because you are oblivious to the intrusion of government into people’s lives. I am always aware of it. Both Democrats and Republicans have been intruding into the nuclear family by maintaining state sanctioned “marriage” in any form. If fault is to be assigned to such intrusion, then both are guilty. Your view that state sanctioned same-sex marriage “is a step toward libertarianism, not against it” is preposterous on its face. Attaching government recognition to any kind of behavior, with consequent government limitations upon it, is always less liberating and, hence, less Libertarian. State recognition of marriage involves more than rights and perks. It involves limitations on a person’s freedom and property rights. It further requires state intervention into a person’s affairs to end that relationship in the case of a divorce. It also involves limitations on a person’s ability to define his family and interpersonal relations. Such limitations would not exist were people simply free to define their interpersonal relationships through consensual agreements without governmental involvement. Thus, pushing for the inclusion of same-sex marriage in the legal definition of marriage is not Libertarian at all. It is a further hindrance to individual freedom. If you think government intervention into the social order ever makes people free, then you have no idea what Libertarians think of freedom.

John W, this whole discussion about gay marriage came about because of you statement "I won’t even mention the many measures advocated by Democrats for the insinuation of the federal government into the nuclear family."

I have yet to see you show a democratic attempt to insinuate the Federal Government into nuclear family by the Democratic Party in particular. You are the one who chose to make that charge at one party and one party only, not I.

As to Liberatarianism, I think your notion that lifting discriminatory restrictions against same sex marriage is an infringement on liberty is utter nonsnse. You can live in your libertarian dream world where state sanction marriage is going away (accept for yours, of course), but even you must must understand that that is itself a extremely "radical" position, far on the fringe of the electorate. There is little, if any, political support for the abolish of state sanction marriage. There is NO realistic chance it will be abolished. None. Zero. To then hold, that if the civil institution of marriage is to exist, that the best way to preserve liberty is to uphold discriminatory laws to deny that right to as many people as possible is just a perversion of the word "liberty". Shall we revive laws banning interracial marriage in the name of "liberty" John? Are the Democrats insinuating the federal government into nuclear family by supporting the right to interracial marriage? Hopefully even you can't twist your definition of Liberty enough to make that statement.

John, I'm done with discusion. Maybe someday we can have it again when you will be brave enough to actually have a forth right and honest discussion of your objections to same sex marriage, rather than this tortured nonsense that you have thrown up in defense of discrimination, but that you have wrapped in the word "liberty".

Mel:
.
Your counter-intuitive thinking immediately leads you away from the obvious areas in which Democrats have grievously intruded upon the nuclear family with the federal government. These include: the Tax Code, education, health care, and welfare, to name a few. You shouldn’t demand examples when they are so obvious and plentiful.
.
Taking 25% of a middle class family’s income is part of the federal government’s contribution to breaking up state sanctioned, recognized marriages. It is still the case that 1 of every 2 of those marriages ends in divorce, and financial failure is still the most commonly cited cause. If Democrats (and to a lesser extend Republicans) weren’t so generous with other people’s money, more state sanctioned marriages might not have gone so quietly into that dark night.
.
Due to the federal government’s intrusion into the health care field in the ‘60s, insurance companies and HMOs are the only choice most people have to answer health care needs. Free-market, private alternatives have largely been driven out by this intervention. Thus, from measures created by the Democrat controlled Congress of the ‘60s and ‘70s, we now face a system where insurance companies and HMO’s, rather than the individual and his or her doctors, get to say whether and what kind of treatment an individual will receive, and who, aside from the patient, can be involved in hospital visits, health care choices and so on. And now, instead of allowing more personal autonomy, the federal government is fixing to make the whole stinking mess compulsory.
.
Forcing people into this situation compromises their personal autonomy in private health care choices. These are choices that ought to be freely made by the individual in consultation with his or her doctor and family. By creating and fostering the environment in which these choices are taken away or limited, the federal government under Democrat guidance has intruded into the family. If you don’t understand how health care choices are vital to an individual’s family and interpersonal relationships, I suggest you go read all those cases that Democrats love so much, like Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstad v. Baird and Roe v. Wade. They all speak to the interrelation of personal, medical choices and family relationships.
.
Education is another sore subject. Parental control of the education and rearing of their minor children is a fundamental, constitutional right in this country. But you wouldn’t know it from the hostility Democrats in Congress have toward private schools and parental choice. This is exemplified by their new found hatred toward voucher programs. And, of course, we know that the NEA, the big teachers’ union, is behind this. The NEA wants no government support for competition with public schools. However, it is precisely because of government driven mediocrity, arm in arm with the NEA, that our schools have become such dismal failures. This is why people are clamoring for private education, even if it means home-schooling. This is why it is merely fair, if only minimally, to give people a choice of sending their children to private schools if they are also forced to pay for the education of everyone else’s children. The optimal condition would be to foster competition between public and private schools, by allowing people to entirely opt out of funding for public schools if they choose to educate their children at home or in a private school. That’s especially true if local public schools fail to meet minimum standards of excellence. But, of course, we will never hear this from our Democrat Congress anytime in the near future. We will, instead, see even more funding and more anti-competition measures handed out by Barack Obama and company.
.
Now, what I have just laid out are only three examples how the Democrat dominated federal government has intruded into the family. I could think of more. Welfare, for example, comes to mind as an example of where so-called liberals have destroyed families while pretending to help them. But I don’t think you were (or are) ignorant of any of this stuff - much less the way in which the federal government intrudes upon the nuclear family and interpersonal relations. It was, I think, rather disingenuous of you to suggest that nothing of the sort takes place.
.
With regard to the issue of marriage, your logic proceeds on the premise that equality in injury is better than no equality. It is worse to punch only one person in the eye when there are two equally opportune victims. Thus, even if it is an injury to personal autonomy to regulate heterosexual marriage, it is still better to include same sex marriage within the same regulation simply to effectuate some absurd semblance of equality. This reasoning takes the saying, “misery loves company” to newer heights of absurdity. I think it better for government to stay out of peoples’ personal affairs altogether. Failing that, it should strive to stay away in any manner possible, even if only in increments.
.
Your accompanying argument is absurd, non-responsive, and openly designed to draw me out into making moral judgments about same-sex marriage. I’m not going there, and I don’t have to. There is a vast moral and legal difference between miscegenation laws directed at criminalizing cohabitation of mixed-race married couples, on the one hand, and failing or refusing to grant state sanction and recognition to same sex marriage, on the other. Miscegenation laws were driven by hatred and notions of white supremacy. In contrast, the traditional definition of marriage was not the by-product of historical injustice. The idea that same sex marriage is even thinkable, much less doable, is a very new one. Until a very short time ago, it was universally accepted, in any society in which marriage existed, that marriage was for opposite sex partners. Also, no federal court has ever held that same-sex couples constitute a “suspect class” like racial minorities. All state court efforts at recognizing same-sex marriage have been the product of state constitutional grounds. Also, it is arguable that same-sex couples are not similarly situation to heterosexual couples concerning the issue of marriage for purposes of equal protection analysis. The few times the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken of marriage, it was evident that the Court viewed marriage as a fundamental right precisely because of its relationship to human procreation. Therefore, I can readily agree that miscegenation laws were evil and unconstitutional without also agreeing that the lack of governmental recognition for same-sex marriage is an evil of equal proportion. Trying to bate me into saying that miscegenation laws are valid was rather amateur on your part. (So, too, is your continued speculation about my personal life.)