more of the same

if i worked on this journal the way i have read other people do  (first writing the entries in another program, like notepad, then cutting and pasting in to the text box) i could have put this in as my first entry on the subject.  but i don't think it really matters.  more on my favorite new institution, Marriage Protection Week  (okay, go ahead and read my previous post).  do you think we'll have one annually, now?  like secretaries' week, and so on?

this thing would be laughably minor if it hadn't gotten so much attention, hadn't been sanctioned by the head of the secular government, the (p)Resident.  you can go to the horse's mouth and take a look.  you will see that no major religious body is behind this event.  you will see a gloriously heterosexual happy couple on the opening page. you can continue into the site to read their "thinking." hey, if you want to, you can even sign the pledge. or, you can stick your finger down your throat. you can gag.  then you could go to an interesting article by chuck muth, president of a  conservative group called Citizen Outreach, in the las vegas sun.  he lists 10 reasons the Fed'l Marriage Amendment (you do know they're mulling over a constitutional amendment on all this?) is a bad idea.  as a conservative who wants gov't to intrude less on our lives he has some worthwhile points.  some scary ones too.  but take a look at #'s 3 and 4, and best of all:  #10.  then, if you still have stamina left, read john buck at democraticunderground for a sane and reasoned commentary.  a note to end on.  then go roast a chicken and light the shabbas candles.  Marriage Protection Week is over.