Obama On Medijuana

Getting clearer:

It seems to me that Obama now has unequivocally promised to back off and allow states to make their own policy decisions about the medical use of marijuana within their own borders. He also seems to be saying the federal government should consider rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act so that doctors can legally prescribe it. Even if that second part never materializes, on this issue Obama is much better than John McCain, who (as the Times notes) has repeatedly flip-flopped between federalism and drug-war dogmatism, with the latter at this point winning out.

Denying Kmiec Communion

Kmiec was denied communion because of his support for Obama. Here’s his account:

Having been drawn to Senator Obama’s remarkable “love thy neighbor” style of campaigning, his express aim to transcend partisan divide, and specifically, his appreciation for faith ("secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square"), I did not expect to be clobbered by co-religionists.

On the blogs, I have been declared “self-excommunicated,” and recently at a Mass before a dinner speech to Catholic business leaders, a very angry college chaplain excoriated my Obama-heresy from the pulpit at length and then denied my receipt of communion.

That’s an outrage – and a declaration by some elements in the Catholic hierarchy of a political war. Kmiec has an extraordinary record of pro-life advocacy and passion. Perhaps that’s why he was singled out. But this is an extraordinary sign of how extreme the theocons have become.

From The Corner

Manzi on the marriage ruling:

I am skeptical that gay marriage is part of a process of social breakdown, but lots of people disagree with me.  We have differing theories.  I accept that I might be wrong, or at minimum wrong for some times or places.  It seems to me that the best way to answer this question is not to yell at each other, or even to see who can write the most elegant and persuasive books, but to let different groups of people voluntarily try different approaches and see what actually happens.

Americans have a healthy aversion to telling other people how to live.  Only about 30 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Why don’t we try letting people live how they want to live, and let others try to impose uniform national rules on a heterogeneous population of 300 million people?

Are two states out of 50 really too much?

Obama Unleashed

Obamaspencerplattgetty

The president pissed him off:

Well I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain – if they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that’s a debate I’m ready to win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.

"…in the Bush-McCain worldview, everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an appeaser. And back during his “No Surrender” tour, John McCain said anyone who wants to end the war in Iraq responsibly wants to surrender; he even said later on that he would be ok keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years, but yesterday he said our troops could be home by 2013. He offered the promise that America will win a victory, with no understanding that Iraq is fighting a civil war. Just like George Bush, his plan isn’t about winning, it’s about staying, and that’s why there will be a clear choice in November: fighting a war without end, or ending this war. Because we don’t need John McCain’s prediction about when the war will end – we need a plan to end it.

As I said, Bush just gave Obama a gift that will keep on giving. The more that McCain and Bush engage in this dated anything-but-us-is-unacceptable-appeasement nonsense, Obama will win. Do Bush and McCain think we’ve been asleep for the past seven years? How dumb do they think we are?

(Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty.)

Christianism Watch

From Colorado, another mind-blowing attempt to micro-manage nature:

On Tuesday the group Colorado for Equal Rights submitted 131,245 signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would define a fertilized embryo as a person. Voters will decide on the measure that would amend the state Constitution to extend a fertilized embryo equal rights and protections. It would define "any human being from the moment of fertilization" as a "person" for purposes of the state’s constitutional provisions "relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law."

Do they have any idea how many such persons die of natural causes in one fertile woman in a year?