Personally, I make up my mind about candidates at least 6 months before an election, and ignore anything after. Looks like I made the right choice again.

One of the problems here is that Marriage has been associated with the government's requirement of the registration of a religious event. Whether or not a religious organization "recognizes" associations between believers and non-believers, blacks and whites, men and women, or any other group, or not, should not be confused with the State's responsibility of treating it's citizens without bias. How's about changing the definition of "Marriage" to be a religious construct (just as "Baptism," "Confirmation," or "Bar Mitzvah" are) and move the fight to its rightful domain: YOUR church!

The article is balanced, but assumes that the reader agrees with the author regarding the role of the office. Bush has crippled the government with incompetence and micromanagement worldwide and at all levels, a vile mix. If the office of the President is to provide leadership (both domestically and as a worldwide figurehead for this Democracy), it needs a leader that inspires, is smart in surrounding himself with competent and world-class advisers and managers as well as being talented at bringing opposing political and social factions close enough to effect communications and negotiation. By these criteria, I think Obama stands out in a field of two very good choices.

At last! An unbiased description of the issue! From here we can have an intelligent discussion of the issue, pro or con. Bravo to Henig & Robertson!

At least Ms Malkin comes out and identifies this piece as her opinion and makes clear in the 4th paragraph what seriousness she applies to the "debate."