Gay Marriage?

I have stayed away from this discussion, mainly because my views are quite practical, and would most likely alienate people from all sides of the debate.  Given the latest story from the Boston Herald outlining the Boston Globe's directive for gay couples to either marry or lose benefits, it's perhaps as a good a time as any to come out with my opinion... (thanks to the Flesh Presser for the tip on this one!)

While I believe that, if there is such a thing as absolute moral values, and those are based on scripture, then it is clear that homosexual activity is morally wrong.  I also believe, however, that in these cases it would be wrong to actually legislate against them (and somewhat problematic--I know I don't want to be involved on the stake out in these cases!)

I have come, over time, to nominally support the notion of gay marriage. I have been for too long a victim of the "marriage penalty" when it comes to tax structures.  While I have seen two incomes, stacked one on the other, resulting in higher and higher taxation, I have seen homosexual couples enjoy the freedom to claim two sets of income.  Now admittedly I have been able to have benefits for my spouse, and my children, that have often been denied to homosexual couples.  But once those couples started to receive the benefits of the union, without the taxation of the union, my view began to shift.

It seems to me that the Boston Globe is taking the correct approach on this issue.  Benefits, and taxation, should apply only to married couples.  In this case, if you are married, then you can receive benefits--and you must pay taxes.

As a fiscal conservative I believe this is the most prudent action--let's welcome all married couples into the "marriage penalty" world that is the federal tax structure.  Perhaps the deficit will be decreased.

So there you have it.  I approve of Gay (and Lesbian) Marriage, simply because it hasn't been fair to heterosexuals to not allow it.

A Plagiarist behind every Right-leaning Tree?

Okay, so I had to.  After so many blogs where I talk about integrity in one's writing, how could I not address the accusation that Ann Coulter is a plagiarist.  I found it interesting when I first heard about it, and intriguing when I read the posting at the Language Log (you all DO still go there, right?) 

What most intrigues me though is the sense that the Left felt it somehow necessary to go after Coulter.  Apparently the self induced blindness of the Bashists is not limited to the Administration.  Bashists must nuw blame conservatives for such things as plagiarism.  And, as is so often the case when the Bashists write before thinking, they are brought low by the facts.

There is a good analysis of the articles in question at RedState (tip of hat to Language Log).  I have to agree--when the content in question turns out to be quotes, one can't help but think the Bashists have either no sense of reason left, of they simply hope that the vast majority of people will never actually go check their claims.