via kos, Juan Cole suggests a solution to the gay marriage dilemma that had occurred to me while arguing with Mark over the summer: get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Instead simply issue legal recognition of partnerships. Rights are granted on that basis; the word 'marriage' is left to be dished out by the churches.

But would anyone really fall for this? I think there's just too much history of legislating around marriage. Hatemongers would see this for what it is -- an attempt to give rights to gays -- and ideologues would be able to spin it easily enough ("they want the government to say you're not married!"). I'd kind of discarded it as a real possibility, barring the discovery of a rift in time leading back to the 1700s.

But on the other hand, Prof. Cole is way, way smarter than I am, so if he thinks this is a workable idea, maybe it is. What do you guys think?

(also: I promise I'll stop with the political posts soon)

There's a lot of speculation about possible shuffling within the Bush administration. The rumors seem to be going like this: Powell is definitely out, Ashcroft is probably going, Rumsfeld may be forced out but intends to stay, and Rice may be changing jobs to Secretary of State or moving into Rummy's office.

Getting rid of Ashcroft and Rumsfeld would immediately make the second Bush term a huge comparative success. I suppose their replacements could be worse, but I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt, whoever they are. I hear the reanimated cyborg corpse of Ty Cobb is on the short list for Ashcroft's job, and I, for one, think it would bring much-needed reform to the Justice Department; provided, of course, that its insatiable hunger for the still-steaming organs of sleeping children doesn't get in the way of any official duties.

It's a shame to see Colin Powell go; he's been so pleasantly inoffensive, except for that whole lying-at-the-UN thing. Still, given the way the President pursues foreign policy, sticking an incompetent like Rice into the State Department seems like a good way to neutralize the damage she can do, rather than putting her in a more important position. Like, say, Secretary of Transportation.

But here's some speculation I haven't heard that occurred to me last night -- and if Karl Rove really is the beady-eyed Machiavelli that we Dems have spent the last two days rapidly re-convincing ourselves he is, I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen: Cheney leaves the administration.

There was a lot of talk about it before the election. Well, that didn't happen. It's not hard to see why: it would have been admitting a liability, it would have alienated the base that loves Cheney, and it would have removed some grizzled experience from a Presidential ticket that frequently looks like it could use some after-school tutoring.

Cheney's not going to run in 2008, but his replacement would be well-positioned to do so. This would also conveniently short-circuit the primary process, allowing the neocons to continue running the Republican party. Not that they have any opposition now -- but if the GOP loses seats in the midterms (which, given my complete lack of faith in the President's ability to govern effectively, I think to be likely) the party's going to start looking more fractious, and someone without the Crazy Evangelical seal of approval -- John McCain, for instance, although he'll be pretty old by then -- might slip onto the national GOP ticket.

But replacing Cheney before November '06 would likely prevent that from happening. And it'd be easy to do: the heart condition is a good excuse, and they have control of congress, letting them confirm whatever replacement they'd like -- they only need a majority in both houses under the 25^th amendment.

So there's my prediction. Make of it what you will. But I don't think something as simple as a term limit is likely to make the people currently running the Republican party loosen their grip on the reins of power.