I saw what you said about Obama's stance on gay marriage. This is a concern of mine, too. I could be a lot more comfortable with his views on the topic and I do see it as a weakness of his campaign (though Hillary is no better, and that's the choice Democrats are down to). But his actual stance is the same one I 've taken since way back in the days of the Vermont fight - that government should not be involved in marriage. Religious denominations are the ones who determine what 'marriage' is, and only through historical tradition did that ever achieve recognition in law. I'd like a system in which the government's power is only to grant civil unions (with full partnership) to everybody, regardless of the gender combination of the couple. Then, if you want to have a marriage, which is a totally outside-the-government ceremony of commitment in your denomination or in a secular celebration, that would be open to everyone too, as it is today. That, to me, is totally fair. It recognizes the limits of state power, takes God's presumed opinion out of the entire debate, gives everyone freedom to have both a legal and spiritual union, and generally doesn't mix the legal peanut butter with the religious chocolate. So for me, civil union support is exactly what I'm looking for, not something short of what I'm looking for. A federal civil union policy would mean marriage-law reform across the nation. Marriage, to me, as a personal, family, social instition, never should have ended up in government hands in a democratic society. Partnership rights and the legal benefits of partnership are the only things I think the government should touch on there.

I applaud your choice to actually vote for the person you would like to be President, though. This cycle, more than any other, I've been really disturbed by the number of people using their vote 'strategically' - the idea that you can game the system with your vote. Voting for someone you don't like to 'send a message' to someone you do. Voting for someone in a party you don't support to influence the outcome of that party's primary. Trying to decide who the winner or loser is going to be and voting for the underdog as a show of support once you're confident the person you really want is going to win without your help. It's bizarre! I don't know why Americans have fallen prey to this sudden passion for game theory, but I do strongly feel that the process is designed to gradually distill the will of the people. All the gaming is creating some pretty odd outcomes and power balances that may not really reflect the people's will - as you noted with the 'self-fulfilling prophecy' link.

Miko, the whole separate the chocolate and peanut butter bits of marriage makes total sense to me. Why doesn't everyone do that, I wonder. Never did want church anything mixed up with state anythings.

I am completely with you on the civil unions thing. But since I'm still a libertarian in some respects, I really don't see any problem with whoever marrying however many of whatever. It's no different from business partnerships, as long as provisions are made in advance as regards and children issuing from the union(s). That's really the only difference (and it's a biggie, don't get me wrong) between that and me forming an LLC with 3 of my closest chums.

This cycle, more than any other, I've been really disturbed by the number of people using their vote 'strategically'

Yes, yes, a billion times yes. I have a feeling that this is a large part of what killed Edwards' chances. Many of the people I read about who supported him were too smart for their own good. They got wrapped up in electioneering and statistics and forgot about good, old-fashioned democracy.

I agree that that really hurt Edwards.

Miko for President!!

I agree with you on the marriage thing 100%.

As to your second point, I think the popularity of "strategic" voting is because we have (or rather, had) so many candidates in the race with almost-equal popularity.

Honestly, though, I wonder how much of the gay marriage thing is just to keep it out of the debate so that the Republicans can't use it as a wedge. I agree that it sucks that he won't be pursuing legalization of gay marriage, and that's a substantive point, but I just wonder how "opposed" he really is to the practice.

On that point, I listened to a long interview with Dan Savage on public radio back in...December, I think, and he said something interesting -- in his encounters with anti-gay marriage advocates, he said the vast majority of them have been fine with stuff like putting gay partners on health insurance or giving them the same rights as you would a spouse regarding wills and so forth. He said they're mostly reasonable people who understand that you pay taxes too even if you do have sex with the same gender, and fair's fair.

The only problem most of them have, he said, was with the ceremony itself. They think that's wrong. In other words, the ONE PART OF MARRIAGE that you can't legally prevent from occurring. Bob Edwards' follow-up question was, I believe, "Couldn't they just not go to the ceremony?"

I'm not voting for him, but I've met Gravel and he's an interesting cat, there's a lot I like about him. He was wearing sandals and socks, which is something I like to see in a presidential candidate and just about no one else.