In case you were interested

The National Review's cover this week:



But I bet I know what's not on the list of suggestions from this conservative periodical. Like, you know, letting two loving people of the same sex marry and adopt children as if they were citizens of the Republic with equal rights and all.

In other news, Orson Scott Card is still a horse's ass. But I especially like this bit:

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn’t require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

Do we actually need to look up the statistics on single mothers to discuss whether motherhood actually requires a husband or father? And who the hell said anything about seizing your children, Orson?

I guess what makes me laugh is the idea that judges are ignorant of the potential for people -- and governments -- to just up and ignore them. As if conservatives aren't, this very moment, trying to get a ballot initiative passed in California to strip citizens of their rights. As if Republicans don't regularly threaten to "hold judges accountable" through a variety of measures. As if, in my own country, the Conservative base didn't demand at least a token effort at reversing the tide of right. Judges aren't dumb.

What's funny is that, in California and Canada, and Massachusetts, and soon New York, the democratic voice has been in favour of extending these rights, not reversing them. Elected bodies are expanding the rights available to gays and lesbians steadily -- though not with the kind of speed that justice deserves.

That's what's really got to burn Card's ass.