The answer is so simple that it may temporarily disorient you.

1. Civil unions are a government function
2. Marriage is a church function

In other words, civil unions declare that two people are unified according to the government, e.g. taxes, insurance, etc., while marriage declares two people united within a specific religious context.

These are separate things.

We existing marriages should become civil unions, and governments should proceed from here with granting future civil unions. And if someone would also like to get married, either before or after entering into a civil union, is another matter entirely.

Governments decide if you can civilly unite (which should be allowed for both hetro and gay couples), while the church the couple goes to should maintain the right to deny them a marriage if it goes against that churches religious views. If the couple doesn’t like it they’re free to choose another church.

In short, churches don’t tell governments who can civilly unite, and governments don’t tell churches who they can marry. That’s the true spirit of the separation of church and state.

Admittedly I don’t know much about Hulu, other than the fact that it allows you to view tons of content, from tons of different sources, free of charge.

But that’s all I need to know. I expect to see it severely hobbled by court orders in less than two months. I hope I’m wrong.

[Edit - 23:45:09: So it appears I'm wrong. Evidently Hulu is owned by NBC and some other major companies. Somehow I'm still skeptical. It just sounds too good.]

There’s been a push in recent years to pass laws regarding the use of mobile phones while driving. We all instinctively know that talking on the phone makes us less safe, and there are plenty of studies to back up this instinct.

Things get messy, however, when we start talking about moving to hands-free phones. The problem is that a number of studies are showing that going from a regular mobile phone to one that doesn’t require you to use your hands doesn’t help the safety issue much — if at all. And this is where I had an interesting thought:

If going hands-free doesn’t help it’s because the conversation is what causes the distraction more so than having to hold a phone to your ear. But if that’s true then are there studies to show that drivers with passengers are more likely to wreck also? In short, if the problem is the conversation then it’s going to apply to real people in the car with you just the same as someone you’re talking to on the phone.

And if that is the case, when where do we place this delimiter between safety and stupidity? No more passengers? Not going to happen. No more talking to passengers? Equally lame. So it seems the only option is to reduce whatever the risk caused by actually holding a phone to your head, even if it’s lower than the risk of having a conversation. Going for more than that just isn’t practical.:

yahoo.com

I’ve got an idea. How about we synchronize our beauty pageant age limits with our pedophilia laws?

In other words, if a girl is so young that it’s socially unacceptable to treat her — or even think of her — in a sexual way, don’t allow her to enter a beauty pageant designed to make her look sexually attractive.

(cue Guinness animation)

Brilliant!

I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, un-available to us without such drugs. – Carl Sagan

Idiot Georgia Law = Innocent Man In Prison

From this article:

Adding to the reasons why voters should “Dump Doyle” in Wisconsin’s upcoming gubernatorial election, their state had the greatest total violent crime rate increase (15.1%) between 2004-2005. Murder was up 25.2%; robbery up 11.2%; and aggravated assault up 20.2%. Wisconsin is one of only two states that prohibits Right-to-Carry entirely, but in 2005, 11 of the 12 states that had the greatest decreases in total violent crime, and 12 of the 14 states with the greatest decreases in murder were Right-to-Carry states. The seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates in 2005, and 11 of the 12 states that had the lowest murder rates, were Right-to-Carry states.

Last, but not least, is good news from Florida, the state that during the last 20 years has been most often attacked by anti-gunners, for (among other reasons) setting the Right-to-Carry and “Castle Doctrine” movements in motion. In 2005, Florida recorded a murder rate 13% lower than the rate for the rest of the country (4.96 per 100,000, vs. 5.67 for the rest of the country). For the record, Florida’s 2005 murder rate was 58% lower than it was in 1986, the last year before the state’s landmark Right-to-Carry law took effect.

This is well understood by my readers (they tend to be rather bright), but I’ll say it again just for the record: if you make it illegal to carry a weapon in the United States, all you will do is ensure that only criminals have weapons.

There is a really easy way to end the debate here. Find the number of negative outcomes that have arisen due to right-to-carry laws, e.g. legal carriers having accidents or injuring/killing someone out of anger, and then compare that to the amount by which negative outcomes decreased among criminals, i.e. the overall crime rate fall.

At that point it’s relatively simple. Hell, now that I think about it the crime rate itself would include the crimes committed by the legal owners, so it’s a moot point. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are good. I mean, damn — look at the U.K. Gun control is doing wonders for them, right?

Or look at Jamaica vs. Switzerland. Jamaica allows virtually no guns and has an insane murder rate. Switzerland has an exorbitant number of guns and maintains a very low crime rate. Think about it.

Regardless of your stance on the legality of marijuana, the argument for why hemp should be universally used is pretty compelling.