We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
So, I arrive on Maggie's and what do I see? Three articles bashing California and the most insipid piece of bullshit I've ever seen on Maggie's (and that's saying a LOT) in Barrie's anti-Boomer screed, the third Boomer-bashing post here recently.
Say, BD, I got an idea. You know how you're always looking to increase the Maggie's readership? How about if you consistently insult the most populous state in the union, then follow that up by insulting our country's largest demographic? If that isn't a sure-fire ticket to success, I don't know what is.
If California is concerned about being bashed, one thing they may consider doing is not continuing policies and actions that merit bashing. I'm sure there are some very good and decent people in California, but they are clearly greatly outnumbered by the loons. You want your state not to be mocked work harder to ensure the loons don't win elections.
Beyond that, statistically if California is most populous state you will likely get more links involving that state than Montana. If us Boomers are a large segment of the population and hitting an age where some of us become more of a drain (via health care and pension liability) you will likely see articles/links dealing with our generations impact on the economy, etc.
The linked article about Catholic bishops left me cold at best.
There is no pending legislation to force the Catholic Church to provide same-gender weddings, nor should there ever be. There is no pending legislation to compel Catholic chaplains to tell gay servicemembers that homosexual conduct is not a sin, nor should there ever be.
There is no threat to the Catholic Church if people who are Muslim or gay or Protestant join the armed forces.
And there is no inherent right for the Catholic Church to operate as a state partner in adoption services. As long as the interests of the Catholic Church, including its doctrine and mission, coincide with those of a state, a partnership may be appropriate. And it would be appropriate if the Catholic agency only sponsored Catholic married couples as adoptive parents, perhaps. But a state has no duty to the Catholic Church to use it as a partner in providing state services. If the Catholic (Methodist, Presbyterian) Church (mosque, synagogue, temple) cannot come to terms on the service rules, the state has no obligation to alter its policies to conform to (Muslim, Buddhist) Catholic doctrine.
There may be some real issues about providing elective abortion services at Catholic clinics, or emergency contraception. I don't believe any level of government has a right to compel any religiously-oriented organization to provide services which violate the organization's doctrines. But neither has any level of government a duty to subsidize an organization that refuses to operate according to the government agency's goals and policies.
Thing is, Doc, most of us don't live in California, and we are amused by the loons living there. Reminds me of an old New Yorker cartoon (late '60s): Car on highway, approaching a sign saying "You are now leaving California. Resume normal behavior."
Besides, as I have said since 1971, there is nothing better than a really good bad example. (Permission to repeat this is hereby granted in perpetuity, and without attribution.)