I've had little time to do anything but sift through the comments and take out the repugnant ones. I have not had time to issue my own comments to the borderline ones. Lest anyone get the wrong (or right) impression, here is what I think on the latest kerfluffles:
Gay marriage. Marriages should be happy, yes, but between a man and a woman. If homosexuals wish to live together, I have no legal objection. The problem comes when such couples wish to have their unions codified in law. If the state gets out of the marriage business entirely, that's fine with me. Until they don't, I object. So sue me.
Muslims in the military. I have no legal problem with anyone of any faith, or no faith at all, being in the United States military as long as they take the Oath and are faithful to it. I have a huge problem with jihadists who infiltrate the military only to violate that Oath. I also have a problem with the command structure that sets our soldiers up as defenseless ducks in a shooting gallery. This isn't "risk averse," it is insane.
Response to Pelosi's Intolerable Act. I am as angry as the next man, maybe more, at this unconstitutional abomination. However, direct threats of unilateral action violate the Threeper prime directive of "No Fort Sumters." Like gun control, they will eventually set themselves up to come crack some of the more public recalcitrant heads. When that happens, when they have fired the first shots, then we can respond in kind. Until then, we should be thinking of non-violent ways to wreck the Act and make it unenforceable. Rocks, anybody?