Rosemary,

Thanks for helping to draw attention to this. You're a star!!!

You are very welcome, sweetie!

A constitutional amendment has to be voted on by the people (of Georgia) anyway. Even if I supported gay marriage I'm not sure I could, in good conscience, be against the people having their say on the matter at the polls.

Oh, I thought that were just pushing it through. I didn't realize it would be a ballot issue.

Being a ballot issue is much different than a backroom legislative matter.

D'oh!

Those whacky Georgians!

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The state's school superintendent has proposed striking the word evolution from Georgia's science curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes over time."

The change is included in more than 800 pages of draft revisions to Georgia's curriculum that have been posted by the Department of Education on its Web site. The middle and high school standards are expected to be voted on by the state Board of Education in May, after public feedback.

Superintendent Kathy Cox said the concept of evolution would still be taught under the proposal, but the word would not be used. The proposal would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution and would not prevent teachers from using it.

Cox repeatedly referred to evolution as a "buzzword" Thursday and said the ban was proposed, in part, to alleviate pressure on teachers in socially conservative areas where parents object to its teaching.

A "buzzword?"

This reminds of the time that a state legislature somewhere passed a law making the value of pi equal to 3.

Kevin,

In that case, would you support putting the Georgia evolution issue to a referendum??

I mean, the will of the people should determine what's right and wrong, correct?

Michael, take out the petitions and send me one.

I'm for Gay Marriage and against any ban on it. And -- Thank You again, dear Rosemary! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL GOOD!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL!!!!

I am a Georgian and am disappointed at my state's recent high profile in the national news regarding these two issues, but I have to say that I am not shocked. Ignorance has always been the enemy to progress, and concepts such as banning gay marriage and removing the word "evolution" from textbooks are simply that - pure human ignorance. Fifty years from now, people are going to look back and wonder how FUBAR'ed our society was when we proposed banning same-sex marriage, much in the same way we marvel at our past's obscene racism, sexism, and prohibition.

Dear Rosemary: If it's all right with you, I'm going to stop with the screaming adoration now. It's making me sound even more hysterical than I am, and I think Dean's getting jealous. I'll leave the worship of the Q.O.A.E. to the King himself now. OK? I just want you to know that I'm elated that you're back, I'm eternally grateful to you for putting my name up in bold letters like that, and for writing things like this.

McGehee:
"Even if I supported gay marriage I'm not sure I could, in good conscience, be against the people having their say on the matter at the polls."

Rosemary:
"Oh, I thought that were just pushing it through. I didn't realize it would be a ballot issue.

Being a ballot issue is much different than a backroom legislative matter."

It is indeed different. If democracy has any meaning at all, it means (in Lincoln's phrase): "...government of the people, by the people, for the people.." In other words, as H. L. Mencken put it: "...the people get the government they deserve."

I'm willing to let most matters be decided by majorities or their elected representatives. But, then, that means that the majority must take responsibility for the decisions they make as such. If they vote for good laws and government, why then good for them. And if they vote for bad laws and corrupt government, then they must take the blame for the badness and the corruption. If they elect a Churchill, they get the credit for electing such a statesman. And if they elect a Hitler, then they must take the blame when they find their country bombed into rubble.

The magnanimous Edmund Burke once said: "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people." But that was because he lived in an aristocratic age when most decisions were made by a select handful of men such as himself.
In this more democratic age, this age of "the Revolt of the Masses" (in Ortega y Gasset's immortal phrase), we do know of the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people. It's called an election.

If a man wants to wager his wages at the poker table, I have no right to stop him. But he must then take the consequences of such a bet.
Let the people of Georgia vote on whether or not they want to recognize the marriages of homosexual men and women. And then I will judge them, the people of Georgia, accordingly.

"If you live in Georgia and you are against the ban, please make your voice heard."

Negative implication: if you don't live in Georgia or support the ban, please clam up.

above should read: "if you don't live in Georgia, or do support the ban..."

Every time you say "it's sunny outside" you are being exclusionist to cloudy days!

I'm going to be exclusionist to the majority of the voters of Georgia if they vote to ban homosexual marriage.