A point of view that's no longer reasonable

Jon Stewart takes a look at the latest claim by the rich. The claim is that the taxes shouldn't be raised on the rich because 50% of Americans don't pay taxes at all. The rhetoric that Stewart mocks is amazingly heartless. The video is about 6 minutes long.



It seems the Fundies are no longer accusing gays of being pedophiles. But the new twist isn't much better. It is still the slippery slope argument. It goes like this: The same people who are trying to make it socially acceptable to be gay are also trying to make it socially acceptable to be a pedophile.



Back in 2004 Bush ran on a strong anti-gay platform -- all those marriage protection amendments (including in Michigan) and a call for a federal amendment. So the current batch of GOP candidates can't quite top Bush, though they're trying hard. Paul Thornton, in an opinion piece for the LA Times, notes a difference that provides hope. Back in 2004, Bush's opinion was seen as a reasonable point of view worthy of debate. This time around those opinions are ridiculed.




A lesbian named Tracy from New England shares a couple funny stories of coming out while in Texas. The bottom of the first story has a link to the second.



A piece of the Calif. gay marriage case is before the state's Supremes. The question is whether the people who were on the anti-gay side of the vote were harmed by gays marrying and are thus able to represent the anti-gay side before the 9th Circuit Court as an injured party.

Ari Ezra Waldman looks at balancing freedom to marry with religious objections. He notes three things.

* Religious rights do not trump individual rights. Our public accommodation laws have shown the public believes cooperation and equality is more important than an individual's religious views.

* The religious argument is that gays should be excluded from marriage. When this type of exclusion argument comes up it requires special justification. Any laws that exclude must be crafted to make the exclusion as narrow as possible.

* Therefore a rational reaction to gay marriage would have been strong religious exemptions, not overturning gay marriage for everyone.