A little faith is a dangerous thing.

Barack Obama said: "I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view." The others in questions were gay couples and the rights he mentioned is a civil union. What is interesting is that Mr. Obama, at the same time, says he is against "same-sex marriage".

Hmmm, it appears his faith and marriage, while strong enough for civil unions, aren't strong enough for actual marriage. What the hell does this clown mean? If there is same-sex marriage does that imply that it would destroy his faith and/or destroy his marriage? Is his attempt to sound progressive to progressives and bigoted to bigots Obama has actually said the dumbest thing of all.

Let's be clear. Obama is saying the same sort of rubbish as the anti-gay Right, he's just trying to sound like he believes in equality. Obama is going one step further than most Right-wing nutters. They say that gay marriage threatens marriage. They never specify why, or how that's possible. They just throw up this vague claim about gays threatening the "institution of marriage". Obama says his marriage is strong enough for civil unions but apparently it is not strong enough for same-sex marriage. In other words gay marriage destroys marriage. That is what this means.

But then Obama jumps in where few homophobes have dared to go. He also said that his faith is strong enough for civil unions but apparently not strong enough for same-sex marriage. Isn't that saying that gay marriage destroys faith?

If so, that is another reason to support gay marriage, in my estimation.

Meanwhile in California the attempt to strip gay couples of their legal marriages seems headed for defeat. And religious groups, mainly from outside California, have flooded the state with millions of dollars to bash the gays at the polls. Two major groups throwing money at the anti-marriage initiative are the Mormons and Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic men's group.

I find the defense of "traditional marriage" by these two sects to be most amusing. The first was founded by a horny prophet who couldn't keep his pants zipped so he invented a "revelation" that said having many wives was necessary for spiritual reason -- how convenient! A least one of the prophet's wives was rather young as well. This practice of multiple marriages continued well into the 1900s and is still practiced by fundamentalist Mormons who didn't get the message that God changed his mind. Now mainstream Mormons just practice "spiritual marriages" to more than one wife --- or so they say. But the number of plural wives in Mormon circles is much higher than anyone is willing to admit.

Ronald Reagan once gave a speech to assembled Mormons at the Salt Lake Tabernacle. He repeatedly mangled the abbreviation of the church and kept referring to them as the LSD church instead of the LDS church. But, from my reading of Mormon history, I'm not so sure that Reagan wasn't spot on.

Then we have the Catholic Church, a sect run by celibates, closet cases and child molesters. These are hardly the people to defend "traditional marriage".

Advice from the Catholic Church about marriage and sex is like driving in a car with my late grandmother. Grandma never drove a day in her life. Yet that never stopped her from suddenly yelling out: "Look out for that car" or "Watch the pedestrian." Her sudden shouts were most disturbing, never pointed out a real danger or a problem the driver was unaware of, and just made the drive rather unpleasant. She may have meant well, but with zero experience behind the wheel she ought not to have been offering driving tips at any decibel level.