Ten reasons to oppose gay marriage

On November 8, Texans will cast ballots on a number of constitutional amendments, among them one which defines marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. So when you go into the voting booth, please keep these mind:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of outlandish, immoral behavior. As Senator John Cornyn has pointed out, people may even choose to marry their pets, because box turtles have legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Marriage is a fundamental institution and cannot be expected to be revised on the basis of societal whim. After all, women are still property, blacks still cannot marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Heterosexual marriage will be damaged if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour, alcohol-induced, impulsive marriage would be devastated.

6) Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the citizens of an entire country. That's why there is only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our nation has expressly forbidden single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will alter the foundation of society for the worse; we could never adapt to new social mores. This is similar to the way our society has failed to adapt to automobiles, the service-sector economy, and longer life spans.

Be sure to vote against proposition 2.

"Official A"

As Hunter at Kos notes, the Associated Press cites no fewer than "three people close to the investigation" who identify "Official A" as none other than the Turd Blossom himself.

Why is "Official A" the only person not identified by name or title in the indictment?

On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

Why the secrecy around the identity of "Official A"? Why the deference to his anonymity? What's going on with "Official A" that isn't going on with anybody else?

At the end of this Fitzmas Day...

... the gifts revealed aren't as significant as the gifts still to be.

**For example (as I asked earlier), from whom did the Vice President learn of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA officer? Tenet has claimed it was not he, and the indictment only identifies a "senior officer of the CIA". As Mssrs. Lang and Johnson indicate, we may only learn that at a trial of Mr. Libby.

**Who is the "undersecretary of State" mentioned on page 4 of the indictment who was working with Libby to get information on Wilson?

Why, it could be Marc Grossman, or it could be John Bolton.

**And who is "Official A"?

**Finally, the gift revealed puts to rest the neocon bromide that Valerie Wilson was not undercover, as well as revealing that Libby -- and Cheney -- knew she was undercover. Page 5, top, item #9:

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

Why is this noteworthy? As Josh Marshall clarifies, CPD is where the spies work, not the analysts. Libby and Cheney, with their top security clearances and close association going back to their days at the Pentagon, knew Plame was NOC. There was no way they could not know.

And yes, as Fitzgerald indicated, the investigation continues, but it's no longer just about Karl Rove.

It's about the Vice President of the United States.

Early Fitzmas present or a Pandora's box?

Maybe Fitzmas will finally come tomorrow...

... but today's news about the scuttled Supreme Court nominee, predicted here earlier in the week, produces the same combination of thrill and angst as does the looming announcment from special prosecutor Fitzgerald.

So now what will a petulant, bitter, angry, politically wounded President do -- especially since his brain is preoccupied with self-preservation? Long used to getting his way, Bush has been rumored to revile the Unreligious Wrong going back to his pre-Goobernatorial days. And the fundies now wear the blood of Harriet Miers, one of Bush's closest confidants, on their hands.

So will he throw the Christian lions a piece of red meat, such as Priscilla Owen or Edith Jones -- or will he tell them to "bring it on" again with a 'moderate' nominee like Al Gonzales or Edith Clement?

Is he a uniter (of just the GOP) or a divider (of the entire nation, again)?

Bush is foremost a rewarder of loyalty, and he prefers Texans, and he's got a bit of a retribution hangup, so I'm guessing he taps the beaner.

(Hey, Carlos Mencia uses that word all the time, so don't call me a racist. Besides, I'm married to a Cuban.)