Mr. Orson argues that marriage is "one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution":

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life’s joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution’s protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community.

Unfortunately, I am not a constitutional scholar, so all I can try to find out exactly what he meant (because Mr. Olson does not cite actual court cases) is to Google "united states supreme court marriage", which yields an Wikipedia article for Loving v. Virginia, in which the unanimous decision says,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

So, is marriage a fundamental right? One aspect of it, yes. The decision makes it clear that right to marriage comes from our right to freedom of association, in particular, our right to be with someone we love. But this is a question that we have settled several years ago (although the debate may be ongoing, it's not the main issue here).

Perhaps an analogy would make the issues at hand clear. From the Wikipedia page for Loving v. Virginia:

These activists maintain that miscegenation laws are to interracial marriage, as sodomy laws are to homosexual rights and that sodomy laws were enacted in order to maintain traditional sex roles that have become part of American society.

Well, I agree! Just as anti-miscegenation laws were grave infringement on an individual's right to freedom of association, so are anti-sodomy laws. No one here is advocating for anti-sodomy laws. They have been unconstitutional for many years, and the laws that still remain on books in many states will never be enforced—or be struck down immediately.

That's as far as direct, reasonable comparison goes. Given that anti-same-sex-marriage proposals and laws are generally and usually not anti-same-sex-union (which is sufficient to satisfy requirements of freedom of association, and through which same economic benefits given to traditional marriage by the government can be given), I can't see exactly which widely agreed-upon fundamental rights they infringe upon.

Of course, it depends on whom you ask which rights are fundamental—libertarians trace every right back to property rights, but others may do differently—but here's one general rule of thumb: fundamental rights are given by God (or Nature, if you prefer) and no one else; states cannot grant them nor revoke them—they can only protect them. If something hinges on some sort of state recognition, i.e. an active role by the state, not a passive role of non-infringement, then by that fact alone, it cannot be a right. After all, if a right is truly fundamental, it cannot be dependent upon any human institution.

But in any case, I think the date of the decision might be instructive. This decision was handed down in 1967. The relevant civil rights act (the one outlawing segregation) was passed in 1964. This is an evidence in support of the adage that lasting social changes do not come from the Supreme Court. They come from the people themselves. The court battles of Prop. 8 are, at the very least for the present (even if you are a social liberal), the wrong way to go.

The grotesque bias of television network news and the national press media is an old story -- a very old story. Forty years ago, Spiro Agnew gave his Des Moines Speech in which he described how three powerful corporations -- CBS, NBC, and ABC -- through their television news division determined what the overwhelming majority of Americans got as "news." In the next few years, groups were formed like Accuracy in Media, which began to compile the powerful brief against leftist bias in the news media.

...

What was true in the media was true in education. The radical nature of college is also a very old story. This extreme leftism was not a student movement; it was a faculty movement. In 1975, Victor Hickem wrote:

Distinguished and conservative professors were forced to suffer indignities in silence. Sometimes ‘unperson' to their colleagues, they failed to match the promotions and salary increased of liberal and conforming colleagues...by 1968, academic liberalism reach the position that no applicant for a faculty job could be considered unless he or she possessed the standard precepts of liberal ideology.

As depressing as this might seem, I have hope in the free press.

All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.

Media bias, especially the established, official media is nothing new. Sometimes they lean right, sometimes they lean left. In our lifetime, they happen to lean left.

The good thing about capitalism is when media outlets stop representing their audience's interest, they start going out of business. Independent media that represent the views of Americans (and yes, this is a center-right country; tea parties are the proof) will rise, both in power and prestige, and they will eventually replace the current leftist mainstream media. I have some hope that it'll happen in my lifetime, but even if it doesn't, I have faith that it will eventually happen.

All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.

The smarter elements in Washington DC are starting to pick up on the fact that it’s not tactical errors on the part of the president that make it hard to get things done, it’s the fact that the country has become ungovernable.

Why yes. It is time for the government to dissolve the people and elect another, preferably one that wouldn't hold tea parties or petition the representatives to represent them.

And as for,

We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking.

With Barack "I won" Obama in the office? The president refuses to recognize that the loyal opposition has legitimate concerns and workable alternatives. I don't see how the defeated minority can get a voice in this culture, except by using what may be called obstructionist tactics and making the majority hear them.

If you have a problem with that, get 60+ seats in the Senate. FDR did that, and even so he couldn't pass some of his most outrageous bills.

America is working fine. Our system has stood the test of time and there is no reason to change it (yet). Just because far left elements of the Democratic Party cannot stand the fact that they live in a center-right country doesn't mean we should dissolve the whole country for their sake.

But only 14% of all voters believe it is appropriate for their local religious reader to suggest whom they should vote for. Seventy-eight percent (78%) say it is not right for their parish priest, minister, rabbi or imam to make such a suggestion. The latter figure is an eight-point jump from two years ago.

Christians (who account for a vast majority in this country) would do well to remember Jesus' own words: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is His. Many, many of the issues in our politics is entirely secular and religious leaders are better off not getting caught in the crossfire of secular politics. There are some matters of life and death where religion—more specifically, religious requirements—intersects politics, such as when Catholics are forced to pay for abortions by federal funding of abortion clinics, but those are, thankfully, far and few between.

Aside from those very few issues—and perhaps even on those few issues; if the pastor did his spiritual job correctly, he wouldn't have to worry about politics of his flock—religious leaders should stay out of politics, lest they become yoked with the wrong crowd.

It might seem that Obama is quickly making doves out of hawks, and one could be excused from thinking that conservatives are simply opposing Obama for opposition's sake, but a simple thought experiment (since it doesn't seem likely to happen in real life) will dispel that: imagine Obama approved his general's request for 40,000 troops—or, heck, suppose he doubled it and approved for 80,000 troop increase. Can you imagine a single conservative who would oppose that?

We just want our president to stop dithering. We should either fight to win, or, especially since we have already achieved important milestones, stop putting our men in danger. Anything else is a disservice to our troops:

Mr. President, it is time to bring our troops home.

If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home.

We have successfully rooted out Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Fewer than 100 Al-Qaeda operatives are operating in Afghanistan according to Retired General James L. Jones’ assessment of the situation. “I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban,” he said in an October 4 Associated Press report. Jones, who is President Obama’s National Security Advisor, continued: “Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling. The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”

Mr. President, we all recognize that we will still have to fight Al-Qaeda around the globe. So let’s bring home the tens of thousands who have fought so valiantly to protect America.

Let’s instead use the best human and electronic surveillance available to allow our special forces to target and kill those who actually threaten us.

One can make an argument for nation building. A strong, free democracy doesn't make a good training ground for terrorists and jihadists. But, we can make that argument only as long as we are committed to success, in the shortest amount of time possible—by commitment of whatever resources and manpower necessary that this nation can provide.

If we are not committed to success, then the single argument for nation building collapses. As it was once said, "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."

Update: This is comforting. By the general's own admission, the ball's in his court, and frankly, I have far more confidence in the men of our military than its current commander in chief, so it's very comforting to know that the future of this war is in the military's hand.

For instance, she has supported the work of feminists all along. She, in her book, Greta, as you know, gives credit to Title IX, says if Title IX was not there, she would not have been able to go to college because she couldn't afford to do it. She gives full credit. Do you know how much aggravation and pressure went on trying to fight the conservatives in Congress and get that legislation passed when I was in Congress?

How does that matter that feminists had to fight conservatives in Congress to get Title IX legislation passed? Conservatives then are not conservatives now, for one, and even if we are talking about the same conservatives, are liberals saying that conservatives cannot (or shouldn't) change their minds on anything?

Conservatives are, rightfully, wary of sudden changes. We want any changes to be gradual. We want to be able to roll back the changes if the changes we make to our society turn out to be harmful. But that does not mean we don't see benefits of certain changes.

Even supposing that small-government conservatives were against, say, women's suffrage or emancipation of slaves (trust me, they were not; they just wanted federal government out of states' affairs), tell me if you can find any conservative today who actually wants to remove women's right to vote—or re-institute slavery (in fact, the only slavery-praising quotes I have seen come from a liberal making up and claiming that Rush Limbaugh said something that he didn't).

Liberals were good for something once. At one point, they did stand for liberty (which is why the label "liberal" stuck, even after the label was no longer true). But, in foolish pursuit of consistency, they are pushing even more power for women, minorities, and unions, because that's the direction they have been going in and they think they need to continue in that direction. The concept of equality and moderation (i.e. that once some major goals are accomplished, that's where you stop, or at least try to balance the power and "rights" of various groups) has no place in the liberal vocabulary.

Just like trade unions were good for something at some point, liberal ideology was good and honorable in the long, long times past. And, just like trade unions today, we are better off without liberal ideology than with it.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of Americans say the United States should remove all its military troops from Japan, a central issue in President Obama’s trip to that country Friday and Saturday.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% disagree and oppose the removal of all U.S. troops from Japan. Twenty-five percent (25%) are not sure.

I might have guessed such a result (after all, we still have troops there; it wouldn't stay that way for long if it was unpopular), but I did not expect such a wide gap. What drives people to think that U.S. military presence in Japan is beneficial for U.S. (or Japan, for that matter)?

I am guessing that the people answering that we need to keep some troops in Japan answer so because they think of it as supporting our ally:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say Japan is an ally of the United States. Only 10% view the country as an enemy, while 24% think of it as somewhere in between an ally and an enemy.

Forty-six percent (46%) believe America should help Japan militarily if it comes under attack, but 41% disagree.

And, sure, as a strong democracy with capitalistic economy in the region (albeit with a hint of mercantilism), Japan can be a valuable ally. But what does not follow is that U.S. needs to keep a troop presence there, using our own resources for day-to-day protection of the islands. We have had a special relationship with U.K. for more than a century now—but we do not keep a troop presence there to protect them.

The fact that these countries are our allies—and that if they are attacked, whoever attacked them will live to regret the day—is protection enough. There is no reason to overstretch our military. We should be pulling all our troops from Japan and Germany—and given how strong these nations are, it will not be seen as a sign of weakness by our old (Russia) and current (North Korea and Iran) enemies either, unlike the cancellation of missile shield program in Poland.

"If some unforeseen circumstance should put this firm at risk of collapse, I believe we should be allowed to fail," Dimon wrote on Friday in The Washington Post. "Global economic growth requires the services of big financial firms. It also requires that big financial firms be allowed to fail."

If that's all he said, he would be perfectly right. Capitalism cannot work when the traditional system of rewards and risks have been destroyed by government guarantees. Socialized risks are as bad as socialized economy. The government is not the large corporations' keeper.

However, that's not all that he said, which is what makes me nervous:

Dimon said regulators deserve authority to manage failures of large financial institutions, including the ability to replace management, sell assets, and wipe out shareholders and even unsecured creditors.

Mr. Dimon forgets that by advocating for regulators with broad authority to take over private companies, he is setting up for an idea that is "politically, economically and ethically bankrupt": an idea that the government (and its regulators) are "too big to fail".

Mr. Dimon's idea—of regulators with such broad powers such as replacing managements and wiping out stockholders, destroying the instruments of capitalism that has stood the test of time—may work fine, when the angels govern, anyway. When the regulators' models are perfect, when the regulators' decisions are infallible, and when the regulators themselves are incorruptible, Mr. Dimon's idea of omnipotent regulators will work fine.

But until then, it will not work. Power to shut down companies—with no just cause and with no due process—is too much power for anyone to have. What kind of guarantee do we have to ensure that Mr. Dimon does not use his friendship with regulators to shut down his competitors through regulators, rather than by fairly competing in the market place? What kind of checks and balances are on these all-wise regulators (who predicted and successfully stopped all the recessions and depressions known to mankind)?

Mr. Dimon is right about one thing. "Too big to fail" must stop. It must first stop at the government. There should be no government program that is "too big to fail". The maximum role of government should be protection of life, liberty, and property (i.e. prevention of crime and fraud) and no more.

Struggled? Yes, that’s one way of putting it. After Craig damaged US-British relations by sticking four Gitmo detainees on a plane to Bermuda, and after he dumped less than a dozen more on the island nation of Palau, the pickings for release became mighty slim. Even with the US sending five 9/11 plotters to New York City to face a criminal trial, the Washington Post estimates that 75 prisoners remain that simply cannot be released, sent elsewhere, or tried normally — a situation Obama’s critics predicted all along.

This is going to eventually come back bite Obama. He is disillusioning his own base by breaking every promise made during the campaign: in fact, the ones that he actually does want to keep (universal health care) he doesn't have the power to push through, because this is a center-right country and president is not a king, and the ones he can keep using his executive powers (closing Gitmo, bringing troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq) he was never serious about keeping.

This is developing into a landslide scenario for a conservative candidate in 2012, whoever that may be. Conservatives are happy that Obama isn't keeping his promises (perhaps with the exception of some libertarians on Afghanistan-Iraq wars and Gitmo, but when it comes down to it, domestic policies will matter far more to libertarians). Independents who thought Obama was a moderate have fled from him as they found out more. And finally, liberals will be disappointed with Obama and will simply stay home on the election day.

Unless Obama can change direction drastically on foreign policy (and he probably won't be able to, even with that Nobel Peace prize), his only hope for the second term will be the economy—he might be able to win back some of the independents back, if economy improves enough (just pray that Obama and Pelosi do not raise taxes enough to kill the recovery). But even then, it would be an uphill battle—he will no longer have the enthusiastic netroots support, and the resurgent conservative grassroots movements will be opposing him.

Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department’s subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward “promoting social and economic justice” and “social change.”)

The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded “all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us” on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to “include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information,” including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

As much as Bush was unloved by the liberal media (and the feeling was probably mutual), he would never have tried such heavy-handed tactic. Even as a neocon, such overt exertion of government power (with no apparent compelling state interest) would have gotten him disowned by his own base.

But, as a statist, Obama administration doesn't have any problem with government control and government action—neither does he fear alienation of most of his base when he does something like this—because most of his supporters care far more about redistribution of wealth than liberty and freedom.

If there is any liberal left who gives a damn about freedom (never mind which freedom you cherish most—regardless of order and priority, there are some freedoms that we all care about deeply), take heed: statism is the wrong road to go down, for statism always leads to totalitarianism—and the day when totalitarianism is synonymous with liberalism is when Orwell's nightmare has come true.