For awhile, I refused to become interested in any new TV shows. I had some shows I loved and they kept getting cancelled one after another (Futurama, Pushing Daises, etc). Meanwhile, reality shows like Survivor kept getting season after season. The one reality show that I liked - The Mole - was cancelled as well. That was the only show where using your brain was rewarded more than physical challenges and backstabbing. I've been slowly getting interested in shows again, but now that we've cut cable it's on my terms. I'll find a show on Netflix/Amazon/Hulu and will watch a bunch of the episodes back-to-back. I've found some really good shows this way and I know in advance how many episodes there are (at least) so there's no "oops, that was the last one" surprise.
In the political sphere, my mother used to be a Presidential race harbinger of doom. Everyone she voted for for President lost. She voted against Carter and he won. Then she voted FOR Carter and he lost. She voted against Reagan in his re-election and he won. I believe her streak was broken in the Bush-Gore race. She voted for Bush which I felt meant that Gore was assured victory. We all know how that turned out. Since then, she's voted for Bush again in his re-election and against Obama twice so it looks like Bush might have been the only anomaly in her voting streak.
In my case, a diagnosis would cost money when our budget is tight. I already have my coping mechanisms so it wouldn't help me. My son's getting his help so a diagnosis for me wouldn't help him. I'm comfortable knowing that I have Asperger's without having the diagnosis.
At this point, a diagnosis would mainly be to show other people to quiet them up if they claim I'm just making it up. Quite honestly, there is a limited group of people whose opinions I care about. If $RANDOM_PERSON or even $RANDOM_FAMILY_MEMBER refuses to believe me until I get a diagnosis, that's their problem.
I do know others who have gotten the diagnosis in adulthood and more power to them. For me, though, unless I don't have to spend a lot of money on it (or unless money isn't that tight anymore), it's not going to be a priority for me.
I can see "watching coding" when it comes to instructional videos. I've had good experiences with some of those. However, watching someone code as a form of entertainment? I love to code but I'd be bored if I had to watch someone else code.
It isn't a psychological condition, but my son was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism. Since the diagnosis (aka knowing what we're dealing with and not just taking random actions hoping something works), we've made a lot of progress dealing with my son's behaviors and helping him be a more effective student in school. (He's crazy smart so before supports he wound up "dropping down" to normal. Now he's getting high 90's in almost all his classes.)
Despite all of this, my father keeps insisting that this is something he'll grow out of (you don't grow out of Autism), or that he doesn't really have it because he had a good accomplishment (no, going whitewater rafting doesn't mean you've been cured of Autism). My parents get even more defensive when I bring up that I think I'm an undiagnosed Aspie. (It wasn't diagnosed when I was young and all the signs fit how I've been for as long as I can remember.) They act as though my claiming that I am Autistic is an insult directed at them. (If anything, it's a testament to their parenting that I turned out well despite the lack of a proper diagnosis/supports.)
I'm sure people who deal with depression or other psychological issues encounter similar people. There are just some folks who think that just because it's a psychological issue, it's "all in your mind" and you can just try harder and make it go away. Suffer from depression? Just be happy! Having an anxiety attack? Just be calm! Do you have OCD? Just let it go. And if you get treatment for any of this stuff, these people will act as though you're weak for seeking help and not just taking it on alone. In truth, though, trying to take it on alone can be the worst thing to do. Get help. Get as much help as you need. Get professional help and help from family and friends. Ignore those people who try to act like you're just making it all up and can overcome it by just deciding not to have that condition. Those people should be tuned out and interacted with as little as possible.
Is the "default search provider for AOL" really that prestigious a title to seek? It's been quite some time since AOL had a decent user group. Next up: Microsoft's Bing to become the official search provider of MySpace!
If they scrap it now, then they have to admit that they wasted a trillion dollars. But if they invest a few more hundred million then maybe that Nigerian Prince will send the money... I mean, maybe that airplane will work right.
I "believe" Google should pay me for beta-testing their various products that almost never leave beta. When can I expect the courts to make them send me a check?
Right after you: 1) File a lawsuit against Google for this, 2) prove just WHY Google must pay you money using currently applicable laws (bonus if you cite legal precedents), 3) win said lawsuit against Google and get a judgement awarded.
Step 1 is easy. Anyone can do this. Step 2 is a bit harder. Especially if your claim has no legal merit (for example "Google should pay me for all of their freely available products"). You might be able to spin some law to fit, though. Step 3 would be even harder.
In the case of the Yelp reviews, the company is claiming that these reviews were fake reviews by one individual. The court should order Yelp to turn over the information on these users to a third party - chosen by the court and sworn to secrecy. This party would review the records (perhaps in cross referencing the company's customer list) and come back with a report detailing whether or not they were one person and whether or not they were customers. The report wouldn't personally identify anyone. If the company's claims were disproved by the report, the case would be tossed (and the company would need to pay costs for the third party). If their claims held up, the case could proceed and the Yelp identities might be revealed to the company (and Yelp might wind up on the hook for the third party's report costs).
Jason Kneen (the domain name owner) posted some details in the comments section on the first link. First of all, he apparently hasn't been served with this lawsuit. The first he heard of it was online. Secondly, apparently the company tried to transfer the domain to themselves without his authorization. When caught on this, they claimed it was a mistake and cancelled the transfer. They tried to get him to sell the domain name, but he wasn't interested. Now, apparently, they're suing to get it.
Also, claiming that renewing the domain name was "in bad faith"? This assumes:
1) Everyone renewing a domain name must automatically look to see if any trademarks have been filed on said domain name and then transfer the domain name to said trademark holders or let the domain expire.
2) Anyone in any form of negotiations to transfer a domain name can't renew it. (Thus enabling the people you are transferring it to the opportunity to just "run out the clock" and grab the domain when it expires.)
Here's hoping the court smacks this lawsuit down fast.
They can easily change the agreement by updating the TOS and have a statement in said link that continued use of the site constitutes acceptance of the new terms.
This led me to wonder about the following scenario:
- You sign up with SomeCompany.com and enter some personal information. They promise never to sell your information. - You stop using SomeCompany.com. - SomeCompany.com updates their TOS saying "We can now sell your info. Your continued use of this site is acceptance of this new TOS." - You still don't go to SomeCompany.com - SomeCompany.com sells your information.
Has SomeCompany.com violated any laws? My guess is that even if the answer is "yes", the chances of getting any meaningful judgement from them is nearly zero. Even if you sue them and even if they don't drag it on and even if you win, chances are the penalty for their actions will be less than what they get for selling the data.
My boys and I love playing Munchkin. Recently, my oldest got Munchkin Adventure Time. Being big fans of both, we loved playing it. This led me to wonder: Assuming you could get licensing for any ONE franchise (e.g. Star Wars, BTTF, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc), which would you make into a Munchkin game?
That goes counter the fact that people in general hate change. No I think the majority would continue to use Google. It is very hard to change societies momentum.
Which is why everyone announces on MySpace about the new Geocities page they just set up.
My main source of knowing what "twerking" is comes from the Weird Al music video for Tacky (a parody of Pharrell Williams' Happy) when Jack Black "practices his twerking moves in line at the DMV." You are totally right about there being some things you just can't unsee.
When I find the pounds creeping back on (like they have been recently), I use an app called MyFitnessPal to record the food I'm eating and watch my caloric intake. This keeps me honest and usually results in at least and average of 1 pound per week weight loss. Add in exercise - which MyFitnessPal also records - and it's even more. Over 6 months, I'd lose about 26 pounds, not the 4 or 5 that this game is claiming.
Put the game down, watch the food you're consuming, and get your body moving. You'll shed a lot more than 8 to 10 pounds per year.
Selfie sticks are, at best, narcissistic nonsense, but the person who whipped one out on a rollercoaster was risking injury to himself and his fellow riders. How much of a grip can you have on a stick with a weight on the end while hurtling through twists and turns? And if you lose your grip, the best case scenario is that your phone falls and shatters below. Worst case scenario is it hits into someone and injures them. All because he "needed" to get a photo of himself.
Great work on Disney's part shuttig down the ride until that selfie stick was confiscated.
Whenever a religious right type tries to argue that $SOME_RELIGION should be the law of the land - beyond this history lesson - one of the first things I think of is: Do you REALLY want this? Do you REALLY want POLITICIANS to decide how you practice your religion? Because even if they choose your religion as the Official State Religion, chances are they'll be as "successful" implementing it as they are successful at anything.
By the way, mass is now held at the Blu-Ray/DVD aisle in Wal-Mart. You must buy at least seven Blu-Rays/DVDs to atone for your sins. Thus saith the prophets of the MPAA and their lobbyists... I mean, disciples.
It's not just having sex and children. Married couples get hospital visitation rights, get inheritance rights, and get certain burial rights. Before this ruling, a state could say "We know you've been in a relationship for 30 years and would get married if you could, but you two are the same gender so you don't get to see your partner when they get sick, must pay more taxes when they die, and can't be buried next to them if they are buried as a soldier. But that couple who met last month and took a quick trip to Vegas get all those rights (until they get divorced a month from now) because they are different genders.".
"Endowed by their Creator" is a fancy way of saying "these rights aren't granted by any people." Thus, nobody can say "well, I just decided NOT to grant you these rights because I decide what rights you have." "The Creator" is a concept beyond any human's control. You can picture that to mean the god of Christianity, the god of Judaism, the god of Islam, the god of some other religion, or just an abstract concept and not any actual being at all. Either way, these are rights that are ingrained in our very existence and thus cannot be violated by a person's laws.
Specifically, when this country was formed, we were breaking away from a country (England) that had a ruling monarch who was also the head of the state religion. The founding fathers made sure that this wouldn't happen with the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances - to keep one branch of government from becoming too powerful - and the First Amendment - to prevent any Official Government Religion.
If anyone wants to practice their religion, that's great. Go right ahead. But they'd better not think that their religious freedom means the ability to tell me how to live my life.
Jacob also married two sisters AND slept with their handmaidens. I guess we need to follow the Bible and make polygamy legal. Affairs are legal too if you can get at least one of your wives to approve of it.
The Supreme Court's job is also to decide when a law is unconstitutional. Say Congress passed a law tomorrow saying "Everyone needs to convert to Christianity" and the President signed it. Forced conversion to Christianity would be the law of the land. Of course, it would be tied up in lawsuits immediately and one of those lawsuits could make it to the Supreme Court. There, they could declare it unconstitutional and make it null and void.
If we assume that the Supreme Court's only duty is to decide the intent of the law, there's nothing protecting us from unconstitutional laws. Congress could simply pass any law they wanted. They wouldn't even need the President's approval if they had enough votes to override his veto. With a big enough majority, Congress could do anything they wanted.
That's why the Supreme Court's ability to check Congress' Power (and the President's) by ruling laws unconstitutional is so important. They aren't perfect, but they form one more barrier against the Constitution being violated.
I agree. The problem I have with the gay marriage opponents is that their arguments seem to boil down to either a) It was always done this way so we can't change it or b) My religion says this is a marriage so we can't go against that.
In the case of A, we change things all the time. At one point, "people were always kept as slaves" but we realized that was wrong and changed that. At one point "women and non-whites were always kept from voting", but again that was changed. In addition, things weren't "always" the way people think they were always. Taking multiple wives and having concubines was pretty standard practice (if you could afford them since women were basically regarded as property) for much of history. Just try arguing "but it always was this way" when you try to apply to marry a second wife without divorcing the first one.
In the case of B, a person can't use his or her religion to impose restrictions on another person. I don't say that nobody else can eat bacon because I'm Jewish and bacon isn't kosher. Go ahead and eat all the bacon you want - or don't eat any. It's none of my business. Similarly, a person can't say "my religion forbids gay marriage and therefore even people who don't observe my religion must obey this rule."
As a side note: nobody is saying that priests and rabbis HAVE to marry any two people who walk up to them. If a rabbi doesn't want to officiate in the marriage of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman, he doesn't have to. He's free to decline and someone else will officiate. The same will go for priests who don't want to officiate in marriages between two men or two women. However, this ruling does mean that somebody acting as an agent of the government can't say "I don't believe in gay marriage and thus won't recognize it as real." A Justice of the Peace can't refuse to marry two men. An IRS official can't deny that a woman and her wife are filing jointly. They need to follow the government's rules, not their own personal religious rules. Then again, this is true for a lot of their job so anyone who can't deal with this should probably find some other line of work.
With a GOP split, you could also have a candidate who is conservative financially but progressive socially. Right now, no GOP candidate is considered viable unless they pledge allegiance to the extreme right-wing religious types. Any GOP candidate who voices more progressive views is quickly kicked out as not being "conservative enough."
I might be tempted to vote for a fiscal conservative/social progressive, but I'll never vote for a fiscal conservative who thinks social progress should be rewound to 100 years ago. Or worse, to an imagined "in the good old days" that never really existed.
*makes a note to go home and check my wife's pulse*
I'm married with two children. I know many Slashdotters are also married. The "all Slashdotters post alone in their parents' basement" meme has been dead for awhile. (Maybe we need a poll to see how many single, married, etc Slashdotters there are?)
Slashdot Mirror
*Takes out Items To Ban List*
So what you're saying is we also need to ban bench drills, metal drilling bits, and metal cutting and welding tools as well.
(The sad part is that I'm joking but all too many people would say this completely seriously.)
What's your bot? (My boys and I are watching the show on ABC.)
For awhile, I refused to become interested in any new TV shows. I had some shows I loved and they kept getting cancelled one after another (Futurama, Pushing Daises, etc). Meanwhile, reality shows like Survivor kept getting season after season. The one reality show that I liked - The Mole - was cancelled as well. That was the only show where using your brain was rewarded more than physical challenges and backstabbing. I've been slowly getting interested in shows again, but now that we've cut cable it's on my terms. I'll find a show on Netflix/Amazon/Hulu and will watch a bunch of the episodes back-to-back. I've found some really good shows this way and I know in advance how many episodes there are (at least) so there's no "oops, that was the last one" surprise.
In the political sphere, my mother used to be a Presidential race harbinger of doom. Everyone she voted for for President lost. She voted against Carter and he won. Then she voted FOR Carter and he lost. She voted against Reagan in his re-election and he won. I believe her streak was broken in the Bush-Gore race. She voted for Bush which I felt meant that Gore was assured victory. We all know how that turned out. Since then, she's voted for Bush again in his re-election and against Obama twice so it looks like Bush might have been the only anomaly in her voting streak.
In my case, a diagnosis would cost money when our budget is tight. I already have my coping mechanisms so it wouldn't help me. My son's getting his help so a diagnosis for me wouldn't help him. I'm comfortable knowing that I have Asperger's without having the diagnosis.
At this point, a diagnosis would mainly be to show other people to quiet them up if they claim I'm just making it up. Quite honestly, there is a limited group of people whose opinions I care about. If $RANDOM_PERSON or even $RANDOM_FAMILY_MEMBER refuses to believe me until I get a diagnosis, that's their problem.
I do know others who have gotten the diagnosis in adulthood and more power to them. For me, though, unless I don't have to spend a lot of money on it (or unless money isn't that tight anymore), it's not going to be a priority for me.
I can see "watching coding" when it comes to instructional videos. I've had good experiences with some of those. However, watching someone code as a form of entertainment? I love to code but I'd be bored if I had to watch someone else code.
It isn't a psychological condition, but my son was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism. Since the diagnosis (aka knowing what we're dealing with and not just taking random actions hoping something works), we've made a lot of progress dealing with my son's behaviors and helping him be a more effective student in school. (He's crazy smart so before supports he wound up "dropping down" to normal. Now he's getting high 90's in almost all his classes.)
Despite all of this, my father keeps insisting that this is something he'll grow out of (you don't grow out of Autism), or that he doesn't really have it because he had a good accomplishment (no, going whitewater rafting doesn't mean you've been cured of Autism). My parents get even more defensive when I bring up that I think I'm an undiagnosed Aspie. (It wasn't diagnosed when I was young and all the signs fit how I've been for as long as I can remember.) They act as though my claiming that I am Autistic is an insult directed at them. (If anything, it's a testament to their parenting that I turned out well despite the lack of a proper diagnosis/supports.)
I'm sure people who deal with depression or other psychological issues encounter similar people. There are just some folks who think that just because it's a psychological issue, it's "all in your mind" and you can just try harder and make it go away. Suffer from depression? Just be happy! Having an anxiety attack? Just be calm! Do you have OCD? Just let it go. And if you get treatment for any of this stuff, these people will act as though you're weak for seeking help and not just taking it on alone. In truth, though, trying to take it on alone can be the worst thing to do. Get help. Get as much help as you need. Get professional help and help from family and friends. Ignore those people who try to act like you're just making it all up and can overcome it by just deciding not to have that condition. Those people should be tuned out and interacted with as little as possible.
Is the "default search provider for AOL" really that prestigious a title to seek? It's been quite some time since AOL had a decent user group. Next up: Microsoft's Bing to become the official search provider of MySpace!
If they scrap it now, then they have to admit that they wasted a trillion dollars. But if they invest a few more hundred million then maybe that Nigerian Prince will send the money... I mean, maybe that airplane will work right.
Right after you: 1) File a lawsuit against Google for this, 2) prove just WHY Google must pay you money using currently applicable laws (bonus if you cite legal precedents), 3) win said lawsuit against Google and get a judgement awarded.
Step 1 is easy. Anyone can do this. Step 2 is a bit harder. Especially if your claim has no legal merit (for example "Google should pay me for all of their freely available products"). You might be able to spin some law to fit, though. Step 3 would be even harder.
In the case of the Yelp reviews, the company is claiming that these reviews were fake reviews by one individual. The court should order Yelp to turn over the information on these users to a third party - chosen by the court and sworn to secrecy. This party would review the records (perhaps in cross referencing the company's customer list) and come back with a report detailing whether or not they were one person and whether or not they were customers. The report wouldn't personally identify anyone. If the company's claims were disproved by the report, the case would be tossed (and the company would need to pay costs for the third party). If their claims held up, the case could proceed and the Yelp identities might be revealed to the company (and Yelp might wind up on the hook for the third party's report costs).
Jason Kneen (the domain name owner) posted some details in the comments section on the first link. First of all, he apparently hasn't been served with this lawsuit. The first he heard of it was online. Secondly, apparently the company tried to transfer the domain to themselves without his authorization. When caught on this, they claimed it was a mistake and cancelled the transfer. They tried to get him to sell the domain name, but he wasn't interested. Now, apparently, they're suing to get it.
Also, claiming that renewing the domain name was "in bad faith"? This assumes:
1) Everyone renewing a domain name must automatically look to see if any trademarks have been filed on said domain name and then transfer the domain name to said trademark holders or let the domain expire.
2) Anyone in any form of negotiations to transfer a domain name can't renew it. (Thus enabling the people you are transferring it to the opportunity to just "run out the clock" and grab the domain when it expires.)
Here's hoping the court smacks this lawsuit down fast.
This led me to wonder about the following scenario:
- You sign up with SomeCompany.com and enter some personal information. They promise never to sell your information.
- You stop using SomeCompany.com.
- SomeCompany.com updates their TOS saying "We can now sell your info. Your continued use of this site is acceptance of this new TOS."
- You still don't go to SomeCompany.com
- SomeCompany.com sells your information.
Has SomeCompany.com violated any laws? My guess is that even if the answer is "yes", the chances of getting any meaningful judgement from them is nearly zero. Even if you sue them and even if they don't drag it on and even if you win, chances are the penalty for their actions will be less than what they get for selling the data.
My boys and I love playing Munchkin. Recently, my oldest got Munchkin Adventure Time. Being big fans of both, we loved playing it. This led me to wonder: Assuming you could get licensing for any ONE franchise (e.g. Star Wars, BTTF, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc), which would you make into a Munchkin game?
Which is why everyone announces on MySpace about the new Geocities page they just set up.
My main source of knowing what "twerking" is comes from the Weird Al music video for Tacky (a parody of Pharrell Williams' Happy) when Jack Black "practices his twerking moves in line at the DMV." You are totally right about there being some things you just can't unsee.
When I find the pounds creeping back on (like they have been recently), I use an app called MyFitnessPal to record the food I'm eating and watch my caloric intake. This keeps me honest and usually results in at least and average of 1 pound per week weight loss. Add in exercise - which MyFitnessPal also records - and it's even more. Over 6 months, I'd lose about 26 pounds, not the 4 or 5 that this game is claiming.
Put the game down, watch the food you're consuming, and get your body moving. You'll shed a lot more than 8 to 10 pounds per year.
Selfie sticks are, at best, narcissistic nonsense, but the person who whipped one out on a rollercoaster was risking injury to himself and his fellow riders. How much of a grip can you have on a stick with a weight on the end while hurtling through twists and turns? And if you lose your grip, the best case scenario is that your phone falls and shatters below. Worst case scenario is it hits into someone and injures them. All because he "needed" to get a photo of himself.
Great work on Disney's part shuttig down the ride until that selfie stick was confiscated.
Whenever a religious right type tries to argue that $SOME_RELIGION should be the law of the land - beyond this history lesson - one of the first things I think of is: Do you REALLY want this? Do you REALLY want POLITICIANS to decide how you practice your religion? Because even if they choose your religion as the Official State Religion, chances are they'll be as "successful" implementing it as they are successful at anything.
By the way, mass is now held at the Blu-Ray/DVD aisle in Wal-Mart. You must buy at least seven Blu-Rays/DVDs to atone for your sins. Thus saith the prophets of the MPAA and their lobbyists... I mean, disciples.
It's not just having sex and children. Married couples get hospital visitation rights, get inheritance rights, and get certain burial rights. Before this ruling, a state could say "We know you've been in a relationship for 30 years and would get married if you could, but you two are the same gender so you don't get to see your partner when they get sick, must pay more taxes when they die, and can't be buried next to them if they are buried as a soldier. But that couple who met last month and took a quick trip to Vegas get all those rights (until they get divorced a month from now) because they are different genders.".
"Endowed by their Creator" is a fancy way of saying "these rights aren't granted by any people." Thus, nobody can say "well, I just decided NOT to grant you these rights because I decide what rights you have." "The Creator" is a concept beyond any human's control. You can picture that to mean the god of Christianity, the god of Judaism, the god of Islam, the god of some other religion, or just an abstract concept and not any actual being at all. Either way, these are rights that are ingrained in our very existence and thus cannot be violated by a person's laws.
Specifically, when this country was formed, we were breaking away from a country (England) that had a ruling monarch who was also the head of the state religion. The founding fathers made sure that this wouldn't happen with the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances - to keep one branch of government from becoming too powerful - and the First Amendment - to prevent any Official Government Religion.
If anyone wants to practice their religion, that's great. Go right ahead. But they'd better not think that their religious freedom means the ability to tell me how to live my life.
Jacob also married two sisters AND slept with their handmaidens. I guess we need to follow the Bible and make polygamy legal. Affairs are legal too if you can get at least one of your wives to approve of it.
The Supreme Court's job is also to decide when a law is unconstitutional. Say Congress passed a law tomorrow saying "Everyone needs to convert to Christianity" and the President signed it. Forced conversion to Christianity would be the law of the land. Of course, it would be tied up in lawsuits immediately and one of those lawsuits could make it to the Supreme Court. There, they could declare it unconstitutional and make it null and void.
If we assume that the Supreme Court's only duty is to decide the intent of the law, there's nothing protecting us from unconstitutional laws. Congress could simply pass any law they wanted. They wouldn't even need the President's approval if they had enough votes to override his veto. With a big enough majority, Congress could do anything they wanted.
That's why the Supreme Court's ability to check Congress' Power (and the President's) by ruling laws unconstitutional is so important. They aren't perfect, but they form one more barrier against the Constitution being violated.
I agree. The problem I have with the gay marriage opponents is that their arguments seem to boil down to either a) It was always done this way so we can't change it or b) My religion says this is a marriage so we can't go against that.
In the case of A, we change things all the time. At one point, "people were always kept as slaves" but we realized that was wrong and changed that. At one point "women and non-whites were always kept from voting", but again that was changed. In addition, things weren't "always" the way people think they were always. Taking multiple wives and having concubines was pretty standard practice (if you could afford them since women were basically regarded as property) for much of history. Just try arguing "but it always was this way" when you try to apply to marry a second wife without divorcing the first one.
In the case of B, a person can't use his or her religion to impose restrictions on another person. I don't say that nobody else can eat bacon because I'm Jewish and bacon isn't kosher. Go ahead and eat all the bacon you want - or don't eat any. It's none of my business. Similarly, a person can't say "my religion forbids gay marriage and therefore even people who don't observe my religion must obey this rule."
As a side note: nobody is saying that priests and rabbis HAVE to marry any two people who walk up to them. If a rabbi doesn't want to officiate in the marriage of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman, he doesn't have to. He's free to decline and someone else will officiate. The same will go for priests who don't want to officiate in marriages between two men or two women. However, this ruling does mean that somebody acting as an agent of the government can't say "I don't believe in gay marriage and thus won't recognize it as real." A Justice of the Peace can't refuse to marry two men. An IRS official can't deny that a woman and her wife are filing jointly. They need to follow the government's rules, not their own personal religious rules. Then again, this is true for a lot of their job so anyone who can't deal with this should probably find some other line of work.
With a GOP split, you could also have a candidate who is conservative financially but progressive socially. Right now, no GOP candidate is considered viable unless they pledge allegiance to the extreme right-wing religious types. Any GOP candidate who voices more progressive views is quickly kicked out as not being "conservative enough."
I might be tempted to vote for a fiscal conservative/social progressive, but I'll never vote for a fiscal conservative who thinks social progress should be rewound to 100 years ago. Or worse, to an imagined "in the good old days" that never really existed.
*makes a note to go home and check my wife's pulse*
I'm married with two children. I know many Slashdotters are also married. The "all Slashdotters post alone in their parents' basement" meme has been dead for awhile. (Maybe we need a poll to see how many single, married, etc Slashdotters there are?)