Yes! First thing that crossed my mind too.

You know...all throughout that last gasoline price spike I kept thinking about how people living in EPCOT would have been so perfectly positioned to weather that. The idea was you could get around the whole city via those people-movers and between EPCOT and the light industrial area via the monorail and not really need the car other then for pleasure driving. They could have plugged all sorts of alternative ways to generate electricity into that city as the technologies developed. In fact, the whole idea was to keep it evolving as new technologies emerged.

What could have been...

Say that's a really swell idea there Microsift. Except that a lot of the anti same-sex marriage amendments that have been passed also forbid civil unions as well. Some of them explicitly forbid any legal recognition of same-sex couples that in any way grants rights or privileges associated with marriage.

Now...why would that be..if they're only getting hung up on a word. Simple. The word they're getting hung up on isn't "marriage" its "homosexuals".

This fight isn't about marriage. It isn't about how the state does or does not recognize it. All the ersatz libertarian rhetoric about keeping the state out of marriage carefully misses the point. This is about hating homosexuals, nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise, there wouldn't be this scorched earth fight to deny same-sex couples any legal standing whatsoever. None of these anti same-sex marriage amendments would touch on that. In fact, nearly all of them do, and some of them, Like Virginia's go even further.

Saying the state should stay out of the marriage business is a nice solution to some other issue, but not this one. This isn't about marriage. It's about the status of gay people in America.

This. I own an iPhone and I've been so disappointed with its PIM functionality that I'm still carrying around my Sony Clie. There is no native notepad sync on the iPhone. The security model is too coarse...I either lock the entire phone or leave everything open. And I can't sync the iPhone with my Linux box. I could go on...but the point is I need that PIM functionality more in a smart phone then I need the entertainment stuff.

I am dumping my iPhone when the contract is up this July. I was really looking forward to this new Palm device. But...Sprint? No thank you. I guess my last hope is Android now...

This. I once worked for a small business owned and run by a fundamentalist nutcase. He had his employee lunchroom littered with his religious pamphlets and conversation with him about...well...anything...was peppered with Jesus talk. He was careful to keep it away from most of his clients, but the employees got it constantly. He would hold regular lunchtime prayer meetings in the lunch room. He seemed to believe that since it was his business, he was entitled to barrage anyone who worked for him with his religion. And he made no bones about favoring the employees who went along with it over those who tried to keep it at arm's length while they worked.

If this case ever gets into the Federal Courts, expect all the usual suspects from the religious right to side with the Scientologists. Expect then to claim that it's everyone else who are harassing the Christians (according to their version of Christianity). If their religious beliefs require them to only employ other Christians, or promote members of their own church over employees who aren't, then when you complain about that you are harassing them. They are not harassing you when they try to impose their religion on you, they're trying to save your soul. They're doing it out of love. If you complain you are being hateful.

The argument has always been that a secular society that values tolerance and religious pluralism is necessarily hostile toward them. If you teach science in the classroom you are attacking their beliefs. If pharmacists can't pick and choose which prescriptions they will fill, and for whom, based on their beliefs you are attacking their beliefs. If landlords can't rent to, if businesses can't employ and serve, only members of their own religion, you are attacking their beliefs. Laws that protect everyone, them included, from discrimination, attack their beliefs because those laws don't allow them discriminate against everyone else. But repealing all the anti-discrimination laws would also be an attack on their beliefs, since that would allow other people to discriminate against them. The only way for them to be free from discrimination, is for everyone to embrace their beliefs whether we want to or not. And it's for our own good anyway.

It would be a Pyrrhic victory for Scientology if Diskeeper's argument won the day. But it's a safe bet that if this thing gets any further the Scientologists will be more then happy to buddy up with the Christian religious right since they both have common enemies in secularism and pluralism.

Yeah...I think these two things, having the 'Y' verses it being fully expressed, were getting confused in that reporters mind. Unless there is some environmental chemistry that's actually preventing eggs from being fertilized by sperm that carries the 'Y'. Is there really a statistically significant change in the male/female birth rates? Or is it just they're seeing somewhat less masculine males being born now. And...how are they judging masculinity anyway? What base line data do they have to compare to, for making the claim that males being born now are less masculine?