Most of you folks know that I’m fine with gay marriage. I’m not a huge fan of using the courts simply because I consider it to be moving too fast for much of society, and I think we’ve seen backlash against that tactic through ballot initiatives. I don’t see a reason to set their efforts back by decades and creating new legal barriers that wouldn’t be there if their lawyers simply waited 20 years for more of the electorate to be fine with it. The fact is that younger people are far more accepting, and we’re now just in a waiting game.  I accept that some people disagree with me, and I understand their feelings.  That’s why I’d rather have any changes happen through legislative branches which are least designed to represent the will of the people.

However, that does not mean that I am fine with this settlement eHarmony was forced into by a New Jersey man and California woman to offer a gay dating website.

Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new website for gays and lesbians as part of a settlement with a gay man in New Jersey, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General said on Wednesday.

The website will provide a dating service with “male seeking a male” or “female seeking a female” options, the Attorney General’s office said in a statement.

The settlement was the result of a discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony in 2005, which will be dismissed under the settlement agreement.

eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family. …

In March, lawyers in California brought a lawsuit against the company on behalf of San Francisco resident Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Here’s my beef purely in the name of economic freedom: There should be absolutely no obligation to provide a product for sale. And that’s exactly what the NJ AG is doing in this case. Let’s compare relationships to milkshakes.

On one hand, they are alike. Your local Dairy Queen sells milkshakes and eHarmony sells relationships (or rather, the potential for one). Personal taste will determine both what kind of milkshake you order and what kind of relationship you’re looking to find. No one would sue DQ for not offering 80 oz. Banana Wonderberry Drizzle shakes. It’s simply not a size or flavor they offer. In that spirit, eHarmony should not be sued for not offering the kind of dates you’d like.

On the other hand, milkshakes and relationships are different. It does not matter if you order a medium strawberry milkshake if you are GLBTS or A. To my knowledge, sexual orientation does not influence the kind of ice cream flavors we prefer. However, if the product is a relationship, sexual orientation of the customer does matter. But, much like ice cream, it’s a matter of customer preference. If DQ doesn’t sell 80 oz. Banana Wonderberry Drizzle shakes, a customer goes somewhere that does sell them. If eHarmony doesn’t have GLBT relationships to sell, then the customer should simply move on.

In fact, in this case, specialization would probably result in more happy relationships. First of all, the company founder doesn’t really believe in it. Do you honestly think that he’s going to put that much effort into the gay and lesbian site? It’s also my understanding that eHarmony has long considered that their methods, which are based in on studies by a Christian founder, are not likely to work for gay men and lesbians. It’s something the company does not believe they know much about. It would be like going to a psychiatrist for a vision problem. Sure, an optometrist and a psychiatrist might both be called Doctor, but they don’t fix the same things. With eHarmony’s perspective on the world and relationships, they do believe things would work differently and they don’t want to get involved in something they don’t feel they know about.

Second, in my Google search for gay dating website, there were 1.92 million results and every ad space on the side is full. It can hardly be said there’s a shortage of specialized offerings. I would think that they would tend to have more choices and better results.

Third, why isn’t the NJ AG pursuing suits against sites like Gay.com and Gay Friend Finder? I see no gender options on those sites. If every company must offer every product, then why can’t a straight girl go on to find a straight man? And, for that matter, why are fans of the 80 oz. Banana Wonderberry Drizzle shakes discriminated against in every ice cream shop I’ve ever visited in New Jersey? It’s outrageous that businesses are forbidden from specializing. it’s what makes our economy so wonderful. (For the record, specialization means that there’s this great little shop called Denville Dairy and sometimes they offer coconut chocolate chip ice cream that’s just to die for. See, specialization is cool.)

Now, does anyone want to take a bet that neither the NJ man nor the CA woman will actually sign up for the new site? I put money that they did this merely for attention.

In the meantime, the cost of running the new site will be passed on to users of the regular eHarmony site. And unlike most companies that can stop selling an unprofitable product, eHarmony will have to keep offering the product, regardless of how much it eats at their bottom line. That is not freedom, just like it wouldn’t be for any of the gay dating websites if they had to fund sites for straights, too.

Every supporter of the Second Amendment has a duty to protect our right to keep and bear arms. Our gun rights are a precious part of our American heritage and one of the reasons we continue as a free nation. Our Founding Fathers considered that right so sacred that they wrote it in the Bill of Rights next to our freedoms of speech and religion. Every gun owner owes it to the next generation to protect our right to keep and bear arms. This right isn’t ours to lose, it belongs to our children and grandchildren.

Barack Obama promises a Supreme Court made up of justices who have demonstrated in writing their intention to eliminate the Second Amendment from the Constitution. America’s gun owners must stop him at the polls on November 4. History shows that once a nation’s citizens lose the right to keep and bear arms, they never get it back.

As Theodore Roosevelt said, “A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” On Tuesday, use your vote wisely; vote to protect the Second Amendment, vote for John McCain. – Sandy Froman

‘Twas the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions all up and down!

I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
Tired of political crap.

When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out of my window
Saw Obama and his boys

They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!

He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink

He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling hi s cart
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!

‘On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi’
He screamed at the pairs!

They took off for his cause
And as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn’t stand up and fight!

So I leave you to think
On this one final note-
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!

The Richmond Times-Dispatch is willing to call Obama out for his “support of gun rights, but” statements. I’m sure his lawyers will be sending in “truth squads” to shut down their presses later this week, based on his past reactions to media outlets highlighting his true record.

And then there is Barack Obama — who said earlier this year that poor, rural Americans “cling to” guns like a security blanket.

The Democrat seems to have undergone a campaign conversion — he now claims to have “no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But he frequently describes restrictions on gun ownership as “common sense,” and his statements supporting gun rights often come with a “but.” His record suggests a deep and strongly felt antipathy to gun rights. Rare is the anti-gun measure he has voted against.

He also takes pains to avoid saying he would oppose on principle even the most extreme gun-control proposals. Instead, he says they aren’t politically viable. A complete ban on handguns? That is “not politically practicable.” Take away the family deer rifle? “Even if I wanted to take it away, I couldn’t get it done. I don’t have the votes in Congress.” Licensing all firearms ownership? “I just don’t think we can get that done.” He has supported licensing all handgun owners, though, and in 2004 Obama backed national legislation forbidding anyone but law-enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms, even with a license.

A Dec. 13, 1999, article in the Chicago Defender reported on an appearance at an anti-gun rally at which “Obama outlined his anti-gun plan [including] banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except ‘antique’ weapons” — as well as (a) banning gun stores from any location within five miles of a school or a park, (b) banning inexpensive pistols, and (c) charging a homeowner with a felony if a weapon stolen from his home is used to cause harm, if the weapon was not properly secured.

In the wake of the Heller decision striking down D.C.’s handgun ban, Obama said he has “always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but . . . .” Last November he said the D.C. gun law was constitutional.

If a political candidate said he acknowledged a First Amendment right to free expression, but had supported seemingly every attempt at censorship that had ever crossed his path, it would be fair to call him disingenuous. If a professor of constitutional law did the same thing, it would be fair to call him something worse. Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

If you want to know what the far worse is, it comes from the title of the piece: Nutty Professor.

You know, based on their comments about censorship, I wonder if they know yet about Obama’s threats to do just that – shutting down anyone who tries to air NRA ads outlining the very same facts listed in the Times-Dispatch’s editorial.  I wonder what kind of title that would earn him.

I have to admit, this is such an exciting time as a woman.  It’s been less than 90 years since women have even had the right to vote.  This week is the 88th anniversary of the certification of the amendment after Tennessee passed the 19th Amendment.  Yet, now we’ve run women as Vice Presidential nominees for both major parties.

And, to be honest, major credit also goes to Hillary Clinton.  When you think about the fact that just a few strategic changes could have given her the delegate lead, we were inches away from having a woman running for the top seat.  While I by no means would have voted for her, I could still respect the achievement in terms of women’s history.

Yes, I’m a feminist.  I believe women should be able to make any choice the want, and I do believe there are a few glass ceilings left to be broken.  I don’t think public office is really one of those ceilings because there is so much else at work, but there are a few.  Even if it’s not a ceiling broken, it’s still a major achievement.

I think about the fact that my own grandmother was born just a few short years after women won the right to vote.  If she had been born just three years earlier, the world for her would have changed in a way her mother could never have imagined.  And actually, her mother only died a few years ago.  So my great grandmother lived to see women earn the right to vote and the first major party female VP candidate.  That’s not too bad for a lifetime.

So make sure your daughters realize what an achievement this really is for them.  This just proves that no roadblock should stand in their way for anything they want in life.

I was asked today about opting into gunblogs.org, an aggregation site for gun blogs. The problem is that it was created as an opt-out system. As in, I get an email “asking” permission, but noting that if I don’t respond quickly, my blog will be included anyway – without permission.

I have a fundamental problem with this considering when I visit the site, I find it littered with ads. Ads are fine. I’ve run the occasional one or two on here before. However, I take extreme issue with people taking my work, my writing, and making money off of it. The only content generated on that site by the author and not other bloggers is the About page. Otherwise, he’s making cash off other people’s writing.

Needless to say, after I finished up some errands, phone calls, emails, and the Blog Bash t-shirt project, I wrote back asking about revenue sharing options given that he was profiting off of the work of others. I simply assumed that since he’s making money that he’s sharing with the people doing the work. Nope, not one cent is going to the authors.

I should note that SayUncle, Robb, and even Sebastian are among those who have given him permission to use their product and not get any share of the profit they help produce. I wouldn’t expect everyone in the blogosphere to have a problem with it, and I don’t actually think I’d be losing anything by being involved.

For me, it’s pure principle. I think it’s wrong to take other people’s work and make money off it without even making so much as a gesture toward them. For that reason, I opt not to participate. Maybe if the owner ever starts sharing the rewards with the men and women actually providing his content, I’ll reconsider. And no, I don’t think it would be any kind of money worth arguing over. It’s just the symbolism involved by recognizing those who actually put their research skills to work and use their writing talents to give him good product.

I’m also vehemently against an opt-out system when it comes to taking someone else’s work. Unfortunately, he did take my content for at least a little while today. He’s said he’ll remove it, but I don’t think that solves the fundamental problem that it’s wrong to take someone else’s property and republish it for profit through an opt-out system.

This debate over opt-out vs. opt-in was one I went through in regards to a non-profit website to highlight the live coverage of the Para USA weekend with Todd Jarrett. Even for a site that only costs me money and doesn’t make a dime, I sought permission from each and every contributor. In addition to the main titles linking back to the original blog, I added a note at the end of every post as to who the original author was and where you could find their website. Yes, there were two bloggers who were left off because they did not opt in to the system. They got email requests and saw the feature discussed on other blogs. I also know that the topic was discussed on site since that number was originally three, but then Sebastian called to say Tam was willing to join the feature on Friday.

So what is the right answer here? I defaulted to what I had considered basic respect and asking permission from writers. Then there’s someone else who is in it for profit and just takes people’s feeds and republishes by demanding that the writers opt out. Anyone have thoughts before the next Blog Bash when I plan to do it again?

UPDATE: I should add that at least one person has told me they didn’t opt out because they confused it with another gun blog aggregation website, FirearmsBlogs.com. However, the administrator to FirearmsBlogs.com follows my philosophy and asked permission first, asking me to opt in to his system. Anyone who is on the other site who wants to be removed if they made the same mistake should be able to find success in emailing the administrator at chris@gunblogs.org.

I randomly thought of Liberty’s Kids today and realized that I hadn’t checked on its dvd status in a couple of years.

GUESS WHAT? It’s coming back! In a single collection!

I had no idea there were so many episodes. I’ve only seen maybe 10 of them.

Yes, I’m getting one.  Maybe more.  Likely more.

Remember how campaign finance reform was supposed to cure us of all that corruption in DC?  Well, Bradley Smith makes a simple, yet key point:

“Are we better off with McCain-Feingold?” Smith asks. If it were overturned, he adds, “that would put us in a system that existed before Jack Abramoff, William Jefferson, Bob Ney, Mark Foley and Ted Stevens. Those scandals happened during the McCain-Feingold era.”

I would pull the Mark Foley incident out of that list just because I don’t think it’s relevant to the topic at hand.  However, the others are absolutely relevant.

So I went over to check out Smith’s organization dedicated to beating down campaign finance laws, and discovered they have a blog.  Yay!  Without RSS. Boo!  Even though I’m interested in the issue, this essentially means that I won’t remember to keep up with them since I can’t add them to Bloglines.  Which is too bad since it means I may miss stories like this from NYC:

The New York Sun reported yesterday that New York City’s new campaign finance law, currently being challenged by Jim Bopp, will bar more than 12,000 city residents from fully exercising their political rights.

The law sets disparate contribution limits based on whether or not the contributor is a lobbyist or does business with the city. Unions and union members, however, are exempt from the law.

Nice.

There’s a movement afoot among college presidents to get the drinking age lowered from 21 to 18.

Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer. …

We call upon our elected officials:

To support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.

To consider whether the 10% highway fund “incentive” encourages or inhibits that debate.

To invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol.

We pledge ourselves and our institutions to playing a vigorous, constructive role as these critical discussions unfold.

This is one of the first times I’ve felt proud of my alma mater since graduating.  It’s also nice to see some other names from my days at the school that have gone on to lead colleges who have signed on.

Maybe I’ll write a letter to alumnae magazine in support of the college president for signing on to this measure.

So many libertarians seem to be foodies.  Yet, somehow when I read food blogs, anytime government is mentioned, it seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of bigger government and less market feedback.  The most frustrating offender is Slashfood because anytime they talk about government regulation, it really shows they don’t know a damn thing about the subject.  (They have one or two bloggers I like, the only reasons I keep reading.  Unfortunately, they don’t post that often so I have to filter out a lot of crap in their RSS feed.)

One post recently contained nothing other than, “Hey!  The government wants to control food safety.  Yay!  I don’t know what exactly it’s going to do, but you should call in your support anyway!  Nevermind that I don’t know that Congress is on recess right now!  Yay!”  Thank goodness one commenter pointed out the wastefulness of the legislation.  I mean if you’re going to call for action, at least give some background to the issue or pretend you know what you’re talking about in regards to what the legislation effectively means to you as a foodie.

Now, I could stop reading the blog, which I may well do one day if the bloggers I like don’t turn up often enough to make it worth it for me to wade through the crap.  But really, I just wonder if the smaller government types who love food are a small minority in the foodie world.

In the meantime, I’ll just look for more consistently good content from Crispy on the Outside.