"Expand coverage" is a bit grandiose for what he did. He made an extremely limited set of benefits (and none of the really good ones, like survivorship rights or the ability to be carried on the employee's health insurance--even if you paid the income tax penalty) available to an incredibly tiny fraction of the gay and lesbian community (namely, those who have partners who work for the federal government). Moreover, he did it by executive order--meaning that the benefits can disappear just as quickly as they appeared, the next time there's a Republican in the White House. I'd rather Obama spent his time on making this a just society where all citizens are treated equally--and where that treatment didn't depend on the whim of the current occupant of the White House. When he does that, I'll give him credit.

In the unlikely event that someone in the hierarchy were to see this, I have more than a sneaking suspicion that the response would not be "Amen," but rather "Anathema sit."

Actually, Barney Frank is a cosponsor of H.R. 1283 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01283:@@@P), entitled "To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." What he isn't doing, however, is using his clout to push it out of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, where it has been languishing for almost a year.

It's usually known as the "Wicked Bible" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible), but I suppose it could also be called the "Evil Bible." It was printed in the 17th century and left a crucially important "not" out of Exodus 20:14, resulting in the reading "Thou shalt commit adultery." The printer was fined £300 (and lost his license) and most of the copies were immediately confiscated. There are eleven still in existence today. If you happened to own one, it could perhaps be called the "Evil Wil Wheaton Bible."

Would it be inappropriate to say "Hubba hubba!"?

Don't think Lawrence is going to save him. As I recall, that only struck sodomy laws off the books. Other laws dealing with other sexual misconduct would, I imagine, remain valid and in force--even if they were codified in the same article. The Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence should, I think, only reach the specific provision on sodomy.

Done. Sent the e-mail to the White House, and told the president that until I see some action from him and the Democratic Party on some of the issues he promised to work on for us in his campaign, neither he nor the Democratic Party will get a dime or an ounce of support out of me.