Monday, July 1, 2013

Why Do I Like Killing Babies?

To the man in the burnt orange shirt who asked me, “Why do I like killing babies?” here is my reply. I don’t like killing babies. Killing babies is criminal. A pre-viability fetus isn’t a baby. Now it’s my turn to ask a question. Why do you like oppressing and punishing women?


To the pro-life protestors carrying signs that say “women regret abortions,” tell this to the woman with more children than she can manage as she watches them fail out of school, get involved with drugs and gangs, and teeter upon falling into the same trap she fell prey to as a young woman. Women regret giving birth too. Go hunt down the deadbeat who said he would take care of her when she told him she was pregnant again. Go make him get a job, keep a job, pay child support and actively parent his children. Oh, he’s in prison, addicted to drugs or fled the state? Oops. I would love for all men to be knights in shining armor who uphold their promises and responsibilities, but the unfortunate reality is that many men run away instead of standing tall.


When it comes to reproduction, the burden of pregnancy and parenting is often born almost exclusively by the woman. The physical and financial resources needed to carry a pregnancy to term and raise the resulting child have a long track record of causing women to drop out of school, forego work to stay at home, and become permanently dependent upon an unwilling partner or government welfare.


The cycle of poverty starts with childbirth prior to becoming an established and independent adult. The number one risk factor for being a welfare-dependent woman is being born to a welfare-dependent mother. Despite decades of progress and the advancement of women in all areas of academia, leadership, and professionalism, many American girls grow up believing their only option is to be dependent upon government support. They don’t know pregnancy can be planned, or if they do know, they don’t have access to contraception. They don’t possess the individual strength to demand their partner participate in contraception. Their community expects them to become pregnant at an early age, drop out of school and the workforce and become dependent upon the government. These are lost lives, entire stories consumed by premature maternity. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.


The way to stop this cycle – to promote the advancement of Texas – is to increase access to contraception, health and wellness screenings, educational programs and to promote healthy lifestyle choices. Texas doesn’t need fewer abortion clinics. Texas needs fewer unintended and unhealthy pregnancies.


To the republicans, you’re making my ruby red blood boil blue.

Why I Stand With Wendy Davis Texas Senator

I’m scared. In a few minutes, I’m driving to the capitol building in Austin, Texas to protest a proposed bill that would likely force the closure of 37 of the state’s 42 clinics by requiring all abortions to be performed in clinics meeting the standards of surgery centers, limit all abortions to twenty weeks and significantly reduce access to abortions in Texas.


I’m scared because I’m on the losing side of a fight that shouldn’t be happening. According to federal law, abortion is legal. Yet this bill, if passed, will effectively prevent the vast majority of women from obtaining an abortion, even in the cases of rape and medical necessity. The law exists to serve everyone, but without access to the benefits and protections of the law, the law might as well not exist.


The United States of America is built on the principle of individual liberty. Inherent to that fundamental right is the freedom to choose one’s own destiny. Abortion falls into the category of a woman’s right to choose her destiny. Any woman who doesn’t want to proceed with a pregnancy for any reason should be permitted to terminate that pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus. This is the law of Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that laid the foundation for abortion and reproductive rights in the United States. This is the law.


The demand for abortions isn’t going to disappear just because 90% of the clinics close their doors. The overwhelming majority of Texas women will be denied access to an abortion because the waiting lists will be too long. Furthermore, women residing outside of Texas’s largest cities will need to travel hundreds of miles to seek an abortion – even if they were raped and even if it’s medically necessary. This is abhorrent. Women will continue to demand abortions, but they’ll be unable to obtain one in a safe and legal environment. We’ll trade the loss of potential life for the loss of actual life. Women die from back alley abortions.


Earlier this year, the state of Texas cut funding to the Women’s Health Program by 67%, which substantially reduced women’s access to preventative healthcare. We will see a rise in the number of unintended and unhealthy pregnancies at the same time the state is seeking to bar women’s access to abortions. This will force thousands of women and children into abject poverty. Rape victims will be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. We’re deleting sixty years of advancement in a single year. This is wrong.


People aren’t going to stop having sex. Rapists aren’t going to start using condoms. The way to reduce the abortion rate is by decreasing the number of unintended and unhealthy pregnancies. The best way to achieve this result is by increasing access to contraception, routine health screenings and exams, educational programs, and by promoting healthy lifestyle choices. Texas should be increasing the budget for sexual health and reproductive programs for both women and men.


In a few minutes, I’ll be at the capitol to support the millions of Texas women who will be denied their fundamental right to liberty by the passage of this bill. I’m not part of any group. I’m just a woman who believes in liberty for all Americans.


Pro-Protesting Gear:


1) Custom “Stand with Wendy” t-shirt: Check.



2) Pink sneakers: Check.

3) Sun sleeves: Check.

4) Fistful of Luna Bars: Check.

5) Tubes of Nuun: Check.

6) Bonus: Cora.




Keep up with the action:






Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Tour de Faaahraaance!

Let there be yellow glitter nail polish. Cue the unicorns and rainbows, I’m going to the Tour de France next week!


My travels begin in Luxembourg where I’ll meet up with my Sherpa. Somewhere in a country the size of a bejeweled postage stamp, Fränk Schleck is thinking to himself, “Thank Johan I got banned from the Tour this year because I’m quite tired of seeing that silly woman from Texas loitering around the bus.” I always feel like such a stalker whenever I go to Luxembourg or to the bus. Anyhow…


From Luxembourg we drive to Nice where we’ll take a ferry to Corsica. Thanks to H&M Austin, I have two cute new bikinis to don on the beach. Thanks to a year of eating ice cream for dinner, my visible cellulite is tagging along too. But, if this trip is anything like the last time I went to Europe, I’ll have a serious case of Fränk ribs within four days of arrival (and still have cellulite on the back of my thighs – thanks genetics). Ok that’s enough self-deprecating comments for the time being.


After Corsica, we head back to France and follow the show! For lodging, we’ll be doing a combination of camping and hotels. Honestly, I’d sleep on the sidewalk and not shower for a month if necessary. I don’t know how cute I would like by the time we arrived in Paris, but it could make for some interesting blog posts.


Anyhow, for a sleeping bag, I’m taking the REI Flash sleeping bag (For gear nuts: and for deal freaks, I bought mine at the winter clearance sale for $170). It’s a down-synthetic blend that weighs in at a whopping 1lb 11oz. Seriously, I’m bring a maxi dress that weighs that much.


While we’re on the subject of gear, I’m bringing the same backpack as last time, the REI Flash 65 for Women ( and I’ll admit to paying full price for it two and a half years ago). In the small size, it weighs 2lbs 14oz and my favorite feature of the backpack is that it’s simple and because it lacks a dozen small exterior pockets, it’s difficult for thieves to steal your stuff.


Of course, I’m bringing my bike, a Specialized Ruby with Gator skin tires (because getting flats in the middle of nowhere sucks) in a Thule clamshell. It’s unwieldy and heavy, but it fell down a flight of stairs more than once and my bike was unharmed. Totally worth the weight. So that’s enough gear for now.


Our travel plans are somewhat flexible. I’d love to maximize every minute of this trip. I’ll be blogging for the entire journey. Silliness must be maximized. I’m collecting a list of things I need to do and photos I need to take. Tell me what to do, Twitter!


At the top of the list is a better photo with Stuey O’Grady. Not kidding, a loop of hair had snagged on my ponytail and was sticking out from my head. I really need to get a better photo before he retires. It’s also been suggested that I crash the press room at the Tour de France, which I might seriously consider trying to do as long as the odds are exceptionally low that I’ll be arrested instead of just tossed out on my bum.


Leaving out lewd, lascivious and illegal conduct, what else should I do during the Tour de France?




* I’m not affiliated with REI. I’m just a customer who likes their products.


Some alternate dimension of hell just froze over. I’ve finally published another story. It’s called Lemon. It’s about a young man who has made some mistakes. He’s standing at a precipice many of us are all too familiar with. It’s short and bittersweet. Please let me know what you think.


Ethan Gottschalt’s made some mistakes. He was on the fast-track to achieve his dreams until he made a critical error that triggered his untimely downfall. Since that time, he’s knocked up the gorgeous train wreck next door and attracted the ire of a virtual legion of enemies who’ve cornered him in the most precarious of predicaments. It’s time for him to face his foes. His life hangs in the balance and he has only one chance to save himself.

Lemon is a story of forgiveness, redemption and revenge.  

Lemon is a novella of approximately 21,500 words.


Thursday, May 2, 2013

The Shi... Well You Know What Happened with Lance Armstrong

On the shores of “Lake Austin” (which is really just a dammed up river)…


Lance Armstrong sits up in bed and stretches his arms in the air then walks through the fancy $5M mansion on his way to the kitchen.


Inhaling the aroma of Juan Pelota java, he gazes upon the spectacular view of the river and hills from the kitchen window.


“Not bad for ten bucks,” he says with an evil smirk.


The phone in his pocket rings.


“McConaughey! Dude, what’s up?”


“Hey man, nice phallic symbol. I can see almost see it from my house with my new high-powered binoculars.”


“That’s not a phallic symbol. It’s a wind turbine. Hold on one second.”


Lance throws the phone on the counter and rushes through the sliding glass doors. He runs across the expansive grass lawn in his flip flops and pajama pants, waving his arms at the dozen men erecting a massive metal pole next to the boathouse.


“Guys wait! Stop! That’s not tall enough!” he yells at the construction crew.


“But, Mister Armstrong,” the foreman says, speaking in a low voice and pulling his construction helmet over his eyebrows, “we’re already breaking the code. Wind turbines aren’t allowed in this part of the city.”


“Oh c’mon. You think I care about the code? I want unlimited electricity at no cost. Double it and paint it yellow or I’m suing you!”


Inside the kitchen, he returns to his conversation with Matthew McConaughey.


“Sorry ‘bout that buddy.”


“What’s with the wind turbine?”


“I’m rebranding myself. I’m bringing yellow to the green energy industry. The techno-hippies are going to love… get ready for it… BlowStrong.”


A few days later…


Lance is standing in the kitchen, admiring the world’s tallest yellow wind turbine.


The phone in his pocket rings.


“McConaughey! Dude, what’s up?”


“Don’t you have caller ID?” a woman says.


“Uhhh… tell me your name and I’ll tell you mine.”


“Shove it Lance. That stupid wind turbine is blocking my view. Tear it down.”


“Who is this?”




A few hours later…


A tractor towing a massive 16th century catapult crashes through the driveway and onto the expansive grass lawn. Sandra Bullock, dressed in a lavender suit from the set of Miss Congeniality, hops down from the tractor. In her hand is a remote control with a shiny red button.


“This is your last chance Lance!” she shouts.


“Wha…what… what is that smell?” Lance says, waving his hand over his nose.


“First it was watering the pavement during a drought then it was the mud in Dripping Springs. Now it’s this!” she screams and points to the wind turbine. “Why can’t you just be a good neighbor? This is Texas for crying out loud. People are supposed to be nice! Why can’t you just be nice?”


“But it’s green energy. Everyone loves green energy.”


*SPLAT* A bird crashes into the blades of the wind turbine and falls into the river with a loud splash.


Sandra gasps. “Mister Armstrong you are insufferable!” she shouts as she runs up the steep driveway.


“I should get President Obama to fund this project. This is brilliant. Unlimited electricity at no cost. Government subsidies to pay for the turbines and it’s like free. I should make that my new slogan.”


*SQUAWK* A bird lands with a thud on the pile of rotting feathered carcasses near the shoreline.


“Unlimited electricity at no cost,” he says nodding in agreement with himself. “I like that. Good thinking Lance.”


Standing on the bright green lawn, the water-saturated grass tickles his toes. Holding a steaming cup of Juan Pelota java in his hand, Lance nods at the wind turbine. He turns to walk back to the house, mumbling about the stench. The phone in his pocket rings and he stops in the middle of the lawn.


“McConaughey! Dude, what’s up?”


“Doesn’t anyone else call you? This is the Lance Armstrong Legal Team. Don’t you remember paying us over a million bucks to defend you?”




The loud snap of a metal rope breaking pierces the air. Lance turns around just in time to see the catapult fling a dump-truck-size load of deer droppings at the wind turbine.


“Hate it to be the bearer of bad news buddy, but…”


Lance looks up at the sky and says, “Oh shit.”




That’s right folks! The shit has officially hit the fan for Lance Armstrong. The government has joined the qui tam (a.k.a. “whistleblower”) lawsuit against him for fraud. Quick, everyone cheer!


Honestly, I’m not excited about this. Ok I sort of am and I am sort of not. I fight with this case on a technical and political level. My opinion waffles on a daily basis. Today, I am more waffley than usual. Yes, technically Mr. Armstrong’s contract required him to abide by the rules of the sport and his willful violation of those rules may have constituted fraud. But is this the type of fraud contemplated by the law? I don’t know. Is it the type of fraud the government should be suing a private citizen for? I’m not so sure.


Whenever the government gets involved, we should ask if it’s really necessary. Is it necessary for the government to sue Mr. Armstrong for fraud? Is the harm against the United States Postal Service, a quasi-government agency, the type of harm the federal government should defend against? Or is the government bowing to public pressure? Notice that Mr. Armstrong is the only USPS rider named in the complaint. Why not the other riders? Did they not also allegedly defraud the government too? Oh right, they didn’t own the team.


I’m disappointed the government opted out of vigorously prosecuting the financial executives who somehow managed to accumulate more derivatives liability than the global economy. Ah-hah! At long last, the secret has been revealed. Why does Anna Zimmerman despise the Obama administration? Because the Banksters are still sitting pretty in their entire-floor-offices with sweeping views of Manhattan! Even I, cold-hearted capitalist bastard, think they belong behind bars for what they did. Callous, wanton, criminally negligent and reckless disregard for arithmetic and reason. These are the people the federal government should be going after.


Take a seat people! We got Bernie Madoff, Alan Stanford, and now we’re coming for Lance Armstrong. Government’s got this under control. Bringing the Banksters to justice is so last election. Survey says people want to see Mr. Armstrong raked over the coals. Wait, President Obama hates coal. Or does he? I don’t know. Doesn’t matter anyways. Tie him up to a yellow wind turbine and crucify him. Oh! Who is ready for the return of #unconstitutionalvendettawitchhunt?


Let me demonstrate the relative significance of Lance Armstrong versus the Banksters:


Lance Armstrong: A flea in the fur of an Ewok.


Banksters: The Death Star.


I get it. Yes, Lance Armstrong allegedly defrauded the government. But why are we going after him and not the real crooks? Wait a minute, I’m having a small flashback to some Congressional hearings that involved a lot of talk of “everyone else was doing it,” “it was necessary to stay competitive,” and “we knew it was wrong, we just didn’t care… because everyone else was doing it and we needed to stay competitive.” Hmmm… now that I think about it that sounds eerily familiar. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you read the transcripts from the Congressional hearings about the financial catastrophe, and replaced “derivatives, swaps, mortgage-backed securities, and CDOs” with “blood doping, testosterone, human growth hormone, and EPO,” you would end up with a document that looks almost exactly like the USADA’s Reasoned Decision, but about a thousand times longer.


And there it is. Now I’m back to thinking the government should sue Mr. Armstrong. Though I would much prefer nailing the Banksters to the bars in their prison cells, I will be content to go after a man who has come to embody all things shady. When you go on Oprah to confess, it’s not because you want the smallest possible audience to hear your confession. Mr. Armstrong wanted to tell the world he had doped for every year of his entire career (except for the 2009-11 comeback… because a man with an admitted 14-year history of doping suddenly decided to race clean *cough valid statute of limitations*). When you tell the world in that vainglorious of a fashion you doped whilst employed by the federal government, it makes it really difficult for the federal government to not get involved with the whistleblower lawsuit against you.


To be fair, the $40M paid by the USPS times three (intentional fraud allows the plaintiff to seek treble damages), so $120M, isn’t a laughing matter. Even if the government loses its case, people will remember Mr. Armstrong’s actions were wrong enough to warrant a lawsuit in the first place, and hopefully that will deter an entire generation of kids from growing up to become banksters.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Look Butt Don’t Touch

One more time for the cheap seats in back, namely Michelle Beadle, David Briggs and the folks over at @NBCSNCycling and NBC Sports, who I’m going to call out for being little more than ignorant talking heads. Here's the link to the video:


We distinguish between thinking, speaking, and acting. You can think whatever you want. You can say almost anything you want. But when it comes to acting, the law makes it clear: you need to be mindful of other people’s right to be left alone. Models sign up to be pretty, to be judged by their looks, and to be desired, possibly even in the most sinful of carnal ways. Models don’t sign up to be touched. In the United States, we reject touching in the workplace so completely that you aren’t even allowed to touch the woman who is shoving her naked vagina into your face (maintaining a torturous one inch of air space) at a strip club. Touching someone, especially in a sexual manner, without their permission is a significant infraction. This is why Americans are particularly incensed about the Peter Sagan butt-pinch seen round the world.


Am I outraged? No. I think he’s immature and unprofessional. I don’t think his actions are representative of the entire peloton (as evidenced from the fact podium girls are almost never inappropriately touched on stage). At this point, I also think he’s been punished one hundred times over relative to the severity of his offense. Whatever you may think of Mr. Sagan, he did apologize quickly, sincerely, and without making excuses. He’s no Lance Armstrong – I may have cupped her butt, but I never actually pinched it.  


Dear Michelle Beadle,


Congratulations, you have succeeded in removing all doubt. You don’t appear to know anything about the Ronde van Vlaanderen, Peter Sagan, Fabian Cancellara (the winner), and cycling in general and neither does your co-host, who doesn’t even appreciate that finishing second at the RVV against Fabian Cancellara, one of the most established classics riders in the peloton, is more than a “decent finish.” Perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the intelligence of a woman who undoubtedly knows more about what you’re talking about than you do.


You’re right. The butt-pinch doesn’t warrant one-tenth of the media coverage and outrage it’s received. You could make the argument that a scantily-clad woman at a night club should expect to be fondled by some of the patrons and I would agree with you, as would my mother and every other woman I know. Doesn’t make it right, but it happens all the time. People typically go to night clubs with the specific intent of mixing and mingling for romantic purposes. The awards ceremony for a family-friendly sport isn't a night club.

Though I agree the world is sometimes too sensitive and a simple butt-pinch shouldn’t get so much attention, your dismissive attitude towards Maja Leye and all podium girls – that they should expect to be groped while doing their job simply because they are pretty young women who are “walking into” a horde of presumably horny cavemen masquerading as professional cyclists and we, the viewing public, should condemn them for an apparent lack of intelligence, ambition, and self-respect – demonstrates an unsettling degree of intolerance.


Our mothers and grandmothers fought for us to have a choice, not to have society make it for us. Criticizing a woman for wanting to profit from her beauty today is no better than criticizing a woman for wanting to profit from her brain sixty years ago. It’s wrong to assume that because a woman is modeling that all she wants to be is a model. That’s like assuming a kid flipping burgers only wants to flip burgers for the rest of his/her life. Modeling can be a lucrative and powerful career choice (*cough*Tyra Banks). Time in front of the camera can open many doors in the entertainment industry. Maybe the podium girl gigs are the necessary stepping stones for Ms. Leye to climb the entertainment industry ladder. Maybe she’s gunning for your job and beyond. I know several women who did similar part-time modeling gigs to pay for school. Three of them are now lawyers, one is a pharmacist, and another is a doctor. Don’t assume a woman who is profiting from her beauty is a vapid idiot with no intelligence, ambition, or self-respect. And even if she is, why do you care? And why does it mean she should accept being fondled as part of her job?


“Shouldn’t you want more for your daughter?” I want my future children to be healthy, independent, and happy. However they achieve those goals is up to them.  


Over and out. The Sagan saga is finished. Pais Vasco is in full-effect and Paris-Roubaix is fast approaching. There are much more interesting things in cycling to talk about.

Monday, April 1, 2013

Stop Arguing Love

Stop arguing about love. Quit with the red and pink equal sign avatars to support “romantic equality.” Love means nothing to the law. The United States Supreme Court doesn’t give two hoots two people being in love. You want to be in love? Be in love. Ain’t nobody stopping you from falling in love. It doesn’t take a judicial rubberstamp to be in love. No one needs to be in love to get married. There’s no checkbox on the marriage license application: Are you in love with this person: Yes or No? There’s no test to prove your love in order to qualify for a marriage license. When was the last time you bought flowers? How many times do you say, “I love you,” every day? None of that. You don’t even have to know each other! All you have to do is be a citizen, be competent to enter into a contract, file the paperwork, pay the fee, and sign on the dotted line. Boom, done, married.


If you are in love, go ahead, throw a party, exchange rings, say your vows, and announce to the entire world you’re in love and want to share the rest of your life with this person. You can even say you’re married. Shout it from the rooftops. I’m married to my same-sex partner! Be married. Buy a house together. Make a life together. No one is stopping you. The police aren’t going to arrest you. Marriage in the romantic sense – the part where you commit to love and cherish each other ‘til death do you part (or until you change your mind) – doesn’t require government approval. The two of you can make that promise to each other without involving anyone else, but good luck turning those romantic promises into a legally-enforceable marriage without the government’s approval.


In the eyes of the law, marriage is a contract formed between two consenting adults (of opposite gender). The contract is an exchange of promises. The couple promises to take care of each other and any children resulting from the marriage (even if the marriage terminates, responsibility for minor children continues). Taking care of each other includes being a defacto guardian in the event one spouse becomes temporarily or permanently unable to make decisions on their own behalf; it also includes sharing financial assets and being mutually responsible for each spouse’s individual financial decisions, as well as being financially responsible for supporting the children. The couple also promises fidelity to each other. Love is presumed, but it’s not mandated. So stop arguing love because it has nothing to do with the legal fundamentals of a marriage contract.


The question is not why should same-sex marriage be legal? The question is why should same-sex marriage be illegal? Americans don’t answer to our government. Our government answers to us. The government is required to prove to us why a particular activity is so dangerous to the general welfare of the entire nation that we should limit its practice. When President Clinton passed the Defense of Marriage Act, the American people were asleep at the wheel. Everyone thought, “I’m not gay, so this really doesn’t apply to me” or, “God says being gay is immoral and it should be illegal.” Neither of these are proper justifications for a government restriction of same-sex marriage.


Though Christianity may be the majority religion in the United States of America, we are governed by the Constitution and not The Holy Bible. Everyone who is against homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage because that’s what they learned in church needs to reread the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State. It means the government is prohibited from enforcing religious teachings as law. Freedom of religion means the right to practice your religion peacefully and without undue government restriction. To all the people who think they don’t need to be concerned with same-sex marriage because they aren’t gay and don’t care, I got news for you. Complacency is the first step to catastrophe. When the government comes looking for the rights you hold dear, you’ll wish your neighbors gave a damn.


Look, I’m not trying to be a fear-monger, but the government is filled with stupid yet amazingly talented power-hungry jerks that are really good at creating their own necessity. We need to be ever-vigilant in protecting our rights and the rights of our neighbors, otherwise they will erode over time and our children and grandchildren will learn about freedom in the history books.


In the spirit of keeping the government at bay, I demand a showing of proof that same-sex marriage is a threat to the general welfare of the nation. I demand a showing of proof that same-sex marriage endangers the children of same-sex couples. I demand a showing of proof that same-sex marriage puts society’s most vulnerable members at a heighted risk of abuse and manipulation. I demand a showing of proof that same-sex marriage unduly jeopardizes the safety of either spouse. “Because God says so” is not a showing of proof the government recognizes.


Stop arguing religion. Your God does not govern the United States of America. Religion is irrelevant to lawmaking. If anything, by continuing to argue Christianity’s prohibition of homosexuality as the justification for the government’s prohibition of same-sex marriage, you’re turning the government into an enforcer of your religious teachings, i.e. the law will be automatically disqualified by the Supreme Court. Practice your religion. Uphold the teachings of your religion. Share the teachings of your religion. Protest homosexuality if your religion dictates that it’s immoral. Shout from the rooftop that you hate homosexuals. You have a qualified right to verbalize your opinion. No one is stopping you. No one is going to arrest you. Why? Because you live in the United States of America and we protect your right to peacefully practice and promote your religion even when we think you’re a bigoted asshole. This is a sacred value to us, one that we found to be so essential to the human existence that we left our homeland, took a long boat ride into the unknown, and established an entirely new country to promote religious tolerance after a particularly bloody war with our former fathers. Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom to petition and assembly. Freedom of association. Freedom is the foundation of this great nation of ours.

If someone can show me proof that legalizing same-sex marriage would have adverse consequences for the general welfare of the nation that are so significant that the least harmful course of action would be to limit the basic civil liberties of an entire class of persons, and/or that legalizing same-sex marriage would cause harm to specific classes of individuals whom the government has a duty to protect, then I will reconsider my stance that same-sex marriage should be legal. Until then, same-sex marriage should be legal because there is no government-recognized reason for it not to be.