The stench of corruption also pervades the media. The hyper partisanship in deciding which facts to report, the willful aversion from reporting incidents that do not fit the preferred story line, the unquestioned propagation of talking points that do not pass the smell test. — all of this and more points to a media establishment in close partnership with cronyism. The reporting this past few weeks reminds me of the famous line from Casablanca: “I’m shocked, shocked to find gambling is going on here.”

I no longer trust the media. Nor do I have much faith in incompetent Republican Congressmen to get to the bottom of these scandals. My hope is for a special prosecutor.

Love your blog and read it every day (well, at least every day there is a post). Typically, I agree with everything you have to say and find your viewpoint to be refreshing.

To wit, I have to reply to a couple of points above. As both a molecular biologist and a lawyer, let me respond:

1. I think the “protected class” argument is over-simplified. Within protected classes, there is an entire range of scrutiny standards that apply. Even if homosexuality were to be given some sort of protected status, it is unclear whether it would be judged on the “compelling state interest,” which is the most rigorous of the standards. If it does get a protected status, it could have a much lower form of scrutiny, allowing many of the current laws to continue to stand. All this said, I just want to point out that all protected classes are not equal.

2. The point that homosexuality is a choice based on Jason Collins’ twin. Two fallacies: first, in a study population of one pair of twins, one cannot draw a statistically significant conclusion for a whole population; and second I believe there are a number peer-reviewed twin studies stating the opposite. Moreover, the argument doesn’t account for how traits are inherited. I have have blue eyes and three children with brown eyes. They have my blue-eye trait genetically, but not my trait phenotypically. Again, it is over-simplification to say that two identical twin have the exact same phenotype. While they are genetically identical, the expression of the genes is not so clear cut, which is why identical twins don’t look or act identically.

In any event, framing homosexuality as a choice or a trait is, IMO, ultimately playing into the hands of the homosexual advocates. This is how they want the debate framed, similar to debating gay marriage under the standards of “love” or “equality,” all of which are non-sequeters to the real issue. The issue is about rights and privileges, and to what extent those rights and privileges should allow a minority to dictate a morality to the larger population. Ultimately, the issue is about government mandated morality. Should the government be in the business of legislating and enforcing morality? The homosexuals say “Yes.” It is an insidious way to side step the Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion and conscience. Irrespective of whether it is a choice or a trait or a little of both, the fight is over whether we are going to grant special privileges to a minority (the minority being defined behaviorally (which is why I think it is a mistake to try to distinguish on choice vs. trait, which ultimately is a losing battle)) that allow them to enforce their view of morality on those who don’t share it. In effect, it is their way of trumping Freedom of Religion and conscience and force you, me, our children to “agree” with their morality irrespective of whether we agree.

My 2c, for whatever it is worth.