biting off more than i can chew

There's a lot of things to process lately. The following headlines come to mind:

"Rain deepens Myanmar misery; death toll spikes" (Washington Post)

What is so utterly frustrating about this situation is that the the junta (military regime of Myanmar) are only allowing a FRACTION of the necessary aid items like food and water to go through to the cyclone victims and have placed restrictions on the movement of most international aid workers. To me it seems helpless. The death toll is already at 78,000 and thousands more will DIE if the junta don't open their eyes, swallow their pride, and allow aid to flow freely through the country. I mean, from the picture below, how could anyone think that not allowing to let aid come into the country would honestly be a good thing. Ridiculous.

China earthquake tops 50,000 (The Guardian)

Then there's the earthquake in China. So many tens of thousands dead and the government is now predicting that it will take 3 years to rebuild all the affected villages and towns from scratch. They are also saying the biggest problem now is the issue of not having enough clean water and how this could lead to a major health epidemic. Looking at pictures of the destruction there leaves me feeling overwhelmed. But I have to believe that each individual can help in the midst of tragedy is this large. Otherwise, it would be easy to be swallowed with despair.

Gay couples 'ecstatic' over ruling (USA Today)

And of course, there is the whole metaphorical whirlwind surrounding the CA Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal. I have heard many opinions about this and am still forming my own. However, I will say that even though gay marriage does not fall into my Christian worldview, I do think that for equality purposes, gay marriage should be recognized by the state. I know that seems like a paradox, but this is a complicated issue. One of the best quotes I've heard on this issue is from Sullivan's blog:

"This is the same point I've made in the past; isn't constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus (hostility)? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple's rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?"

Essentially, gay couples in California have all the same benefits as a marriage under the category of domestic partnerships, so therefore why can't it be legally recognized as a marriage? And quite honestly, there are other issues I'd rather focus on (the economy, the war, education) rather than quarrel over why I agree or don't disagree with two people being married.