Kudos to the people who supported traditional marriage by going to Chick-Fill-A yesterday. The queer marriage debate is just further evidence of the moral degeneration of the United States, but frankly, it's not that big of a deal, in my mind. Of course people of the same sex can't get "married." God created marriage and He alone can define what it is. But, keep in mind, that, according to Jesus in Matthew 19:9, anyone who divorces his/her mate, except for fornication, and marries again, is committing adultery. So, in God's eyes, those people aren't truly "married", either, they are living in adultery. Given feminism and the destruction of marriage and the family in America today, how many millions of people does that encompass? Adultery is just as soul-damning as homosexuality is, so the queers haven't got a monopoly on trying to re-define marriage and have society accept something that God rejects.
**********
There seems to be some concern in the major media--and joy among conservatives--about President Obama's re-election chances. I don't see it. To me, unless something really catastrophic happens, it's almost a slam-dunk that he's going to win. According to nearly every poll, he has way over 200 electoral votes pretty well sewn up; Rasmussen's projection has him at 247 electoral votes, and Romney with 191. Obama, of course, will win every state in the decadent North, as well as the left coast--California and New York alone give him 84 electoral votes. Given the current situation, he only needs less than 50 more electoral votes (23 if Rasmussen is accurate). There are a few "toss-up" states--CO, VA, NC, OH, FL, WI, and IA; if he wins Florida, he wins the election. A combination of 2 or 3 of the others would also put him over the top. It looks almost like a done deal to me. Get ready for 4 more years of Obama. America will never recover from that, but then, America is already too far gone or the country never would have elected him (or Bill Clinton) in the first place.
Mitt Romney inspires nobody. The only thing he has going for him is he isn't Barack Obama. But he can't out-promise Obama, and with almost half the country on government support now, Obama and the Democrats will win. They won't do so well in a lot of local elections because, actually, there are more "red" states than "blue" states. But the population is greater in the "blue" states, so that carries the national election.
Here's the link to Rasmussen's projection, if you want to read it and weep:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard
**********
As I write this, the Texas Rangers are getting slaughtered again by the Los Angeles Angels--the third straight night. At the moment, the Rangers are in first place, but I don't think that's going to be the case much longer. As Texas is again finding out, pitching wins championships, and the Angels have the better of that. The Astros, of course, are the dis-astros; they have one of the worst teams in major league history. But they are trying to rebuild, so they have traded away nearly all of their major-league caliber players to stock their minor league system. Right now, they are basically fielding a AA-AAA team, and it's pretty obvious that there is a major gap between major and minor leagues. Next year, when they enter the American League, it won't be any better. It's a long haul for the Astros.
**********
The country of India lost power to about 670 million of its citizens this week--that is one-tenth of the world's population. More socialism, folks?
********** A little later in the day.....
I'm going to have to eat a little crow here. Regarding the Rangers-Angels baseball game mentioned above, Texas made a remarkable comeback--two of them, actually--and won the game, 11-10, in 10 innings. Still, having to score 11 runs to win is not a good omen. They've got a great team and might make it back to the World Series, but my guess is they won't.
**********
And, regarding guessing, nobody knows whom Mitt Romney will choose for his Vice-Presidential running mate. Condi Rice and Marco Rubio are the glamor picks, but I'm going to guess he'll pick Rob Portman of Ohio. Ohio is one of those "swing states" with quite a few electoral votes that Romney needs. Of course, he needs Florida, too, and that's where Rubio is from, but to avoid a lot of distraction about Rubio's background and experience, Romney needs to make a "safe" pick, and one that gives him a good chance to win an important state. The Democratic propaganda wing, a.k.a, the "mainstream media," are obviously going to do everything they can to distract the election away from the incredibly incompetent and failed administration of Barack Obama. Romney doesn't need those distractions, so I think he would be wise to go with a solid, if unspectacular, pick. I don't know much about Portman, but from what little I've read, he seems to be a good man.