As a libertarian leaner, I voted against Prop 8. But beyond my live and let live leanings, my loyalty to the democratic process is total. You end run the Democratic process and I'm no longer with you.

This has been a clarifying election in many ways. Obama is dragged over the finish line by the MSM and the most significant protests are in California over a proposition? My 9 year old handles dissapointment better than these petulant children.

All this over Gay Marriage is of no purpose when Divorcees and Pornographers get so much respect in America.
Are the Pornographers Left Activists or Republicans?

As well, no one is prevented from living with whoever they want in whatever private arrangement they want, as long as that arrangement does not involve minors. Two or more adults can even draw up all sorts of legal agreements concerning division of property and such. They are also free to find other communities more in tune with their personal living arrangements and to seek employment at companies more congenial with same. (For example, I've never understood why the more progressive of our fellow citizens continue to live in such apparently uncomfortably conservative and uncool places as the South when there are so many other more hip and with-it burgs that are more than willing to accommodate them. Could it be that without something to complain about they'd feel empty and purposeless? O, speak not such blasphemy!)

Bisaal,
In my (limited) knowledge of pornographers, I'm pretty sure they are all on the left. They are not activist types, more the sort for who leftism is a "style," that makes you "cool" and"hip."

And I would bet money they characterize their squalid activities in terms of civil rights, and portray themselves as champions of free speech and bold advocates of liberation from oppression by the rednecks of the "Religious Right."

What annoys me most about the issue is the way the gay "community" is being set up to eat the backlash when the pendulum swings back and people are looking for a scapegoat for the death of Marriage. The Feminists destroyed Marriage in the U.S. and beyond, but they have the perfect patsy's to get blamed for it.....

Very little I disagree with here, but I think it would make for an interesting debate as to how this template did in fact get imposed on the world. The success of the civil rights movement certainly emboldened the left (“Borking” works, thus keep Borking). But the template is the template because the overwhelming majority of our social institutions (media, education at all levels, etc.) consider it to be common sense, and thus impose it in a million subtle little ways (and other ways that aren’t so subtle). This is true because virtually all of those institutions that are so important in setting the tone of our society are almost completely dominated by the left. How did this come to be? I genuinely don’t know. I suppose the simplest explanation is just that liberals are drawn to those institutions while conservatives go into business, engineering, or whatever.

Ultimately, what interests me here is, “How do we break the template?” If my simple explanation is correct, then I’m afraid the answer may be, “We don’t”. Even if that is true, it is important to know. The answer will have big implications on the best strategy for rebuilding (or at least re-energizing) the Republican Party.

Mike,

The "template" gets broken when the Boomers at last roll over the edge of the actuarial table into death, or at least retirement, I think. It's just too bad we have to wait a generation or so for that to happen.

John,

I understand your fury at the tactics of the Left, but I find it hard to get upset over the issue of "gay marriage". (Maybe I would, if I had ever been married, but that belongs in a discussion of alternate universes.) I think where you come off the rails in this is infusing (as I see it) an act of the state with religious meaning.

As I said, I've never been married, and my last even halfway-serious relationship was 20 years ago, so there's an enormous amount of "stuff" that I don't understand about marriage. (Obviously.) Yet it seems to me that the state's role in marriage is simply a recording of the existence of a contract between consenting parties, and the enforcement of the usual terms of such a contract. (The key word here is "consenting"-- which excludes inanimate objects, machines, plants, animals, and minors.)

Why should it matter to you, or me, or anyone else what these consenting people then do under the terms of a contract registered with the state through the process of marriage? If Doris and Laura (and Chloe, too), or Manny, Moe, and Jack want to live their lives together, and share their property and fates..... so what?

I agree that the matter of employee benefits, for example, complicates the picture in cases of polygamy or polyandry, but that's not so much an argument against polygamy and polyandry as it is an argument against employee benefits. (Which the employer doesn't pay for anyway-- the employee does-- but that's a rant for another comment page.)

The state, by its nature, cannot and ought not address the emotional aspects of a marriage. (I think this is what most people mean by "keeping the government out of people's bedrooms".) It's simply beyond the state's competence to do so.

And so we come to the dividing line between what the state can do, and what the Church (or religion, generally) can do. The Church's area of competence lies in the emotional aspects of the relationships people have with each other and with God. (No doubt many of your neighbors, John, would say that the Church is actually incompetent, if not outright malevolent, in matters emotional or spiritual, but such bile is merely a result of their attempts to mix religion and politics.)

Just as the state has no competence in matters emotional or spiritual, the Church has no competence in matters temporal. It cannot serve as a universally-agreed-upon referee in matters of law and contract, or enforce those laws and contracts. As the Leftoids are fond of saying, the last time the Church tried that, people got burned at the stake.

The Catholic Church is fully within its rights to condemn "gay marriage", polygamy, and polyandry. It would be untrue to its teachings if it didn't. And you, John, are fully within your rights, both as a devout Catholic and an American, to roundly condemn those things. The last I knew, pace the Leftoids, it's a free country.

But I have to wonder why it is that some religions are intent on making themselves look foolish, by fulminating publicly about things that are so utterly beyond their rightful sphere of action. Condemn, and even ostracize their own members for straying if they must. But as for the rest of us, I have to wonder why they don't just butt out.

Very well put, Hale.

Mr. Hale, many of us were content to live and let live. It is the Left and the "Gay Marriage" people who demand 100% compliance. Witness the lawsuits against bed and breakfast homes and people who don't provide service because of moral qualms. They have made it clear that it is war or surrender. There is to be no square left private. Witness the fact that Catholic Hospitals may soon be forced to murder children (sorry, I mean perform "abortions").

Second, your point about "butting out" seems wildly out of place. The "Religious" aren't trying to do anything. They were asked to change the status quo. They said no. It seems pretty clear that the people trying to change things would, by definition, be the ones "butting in". Unless you are under the belief that the religious have no voice in a democracy. I don't believe you think that.

Third, your vision of Marriage as a contract is lacking. Marriage would destroy contract law if they were co-mingled. This is so obvious that willful blindness must come into play. If Marriage was a contract, it would be unconstitutional. No life long contracts for service, remember? Slavery, indentured servitude, (which is the closest Marriage comes if viewed through a Constitutional lens), are not allowed. The "gay marriage" people understand this, that's why they are not using contract law. Marriage is special in the eyes of the Law, and has been before the formation of America. Again, it's not the Religious messing with the rest of us and trying to change the system, so why are you blaming them for the "gays" tantrum?

Robert,

Like I wrote "at" John, I fully understand his fury at the tactics of the Left, and how they want to politicize the personal, as you point out. I have no problem with gay marriage. It's the perversion of "equality under the law" in the service of tyranny that I (and you) and a problem with.

As for religious people not having a voice-- of course they have a voice. But sometimes the religious people lose. It's called "democracy", the last I knew. (I'd be happier if we were still the federal republic of our grandfathers' days, but whaddya expect of universal adult suffrage?)

And as for how regarding marriage as a contract would destroy contract law, how so? From the standpoint of the state, a marriage is merely a partnership, a pooling of property and other resources in the furtherance of some joint project. The partners get the privileges appropriate to the partnership, and shoulder the corresponding responsibilities. This is poisonous to contract law..... how?

And no, I'm not blaming religious people for the "gay marriage" advocates' tantrums over Proposition 8. As I said, the advocates are acting like five-year-olds who didn't get the toy they wanted. (Or worse.) All I'm saying is that honey attracts more flies than vinegar-- opponents of gay marriage would be better served if they could point out dispassionately any reasons why "gay marriage" would be B*A*D for America, instead of wailing and gnashing their teeth about how "gay marriage" will mean the downfall of the Republic.

Thanks for responding, sir. I will attempt to answer in a coherent fashion at this late hour. I think you don't have a problem with "Gay Marriage" because you don't seem to understand Marriage (as we see with your definition, which we will further discuss.). I am at a loss to understand how "equality under the law" is involved at all. Every adult is allowed to marry the opposite sex. Can't get more equal then that.

Yes, the religious lose, and then don't throw riots. They try again at the ballot box. They are playing by the rules. So why do you think they are the ones who need to "butt out"?

A Marriage is not "Just a partnership, a pooling of property and other resources in the furtherance of some joint project" in the eyes of the state. They are understood by everyone (other then a few libertarians, and of course, by those looking for any weapon to advance their sin) to be less and more then a partnership or contract. A contract that can be broken by one side without cause or penalty? A contract that can be redrawn by the courts at will, without any binding guidelines? A contract that can be broken without cause by one side which can cause the other partner to be thrown in debtors prison? A contract where one side gets no privileges, but does get responsibilities, unbreakable ones, even if the "partnership" fails? Contract Law is based on Justice. Marriage is not. Marriage law is based on what is best for the children. It's why there are Family courts. Partnerships are between consenting adults. Marriage creates minors, who are to be cared for by a "partnership" they didn't consent to join. Your definition does work for "gay marriage". I wonder why they haven't gone that route...... Surely an empty title isn't that important.....

Your last point starts off strong and then takes a left turn (as I read it.). The "gay marriage" advocates are the ones trying to change things. They would seem to be the ones needing the honey. The anti "gay marriage" people don't want to change the status quo. Why should they have to explain anything? If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?

Hale, you've brought up a number of things I could write about. Let me try one: "why don't we (Christians) butt out?" Good question.

1. We don't accept the idea that religion is to be relegated to the "private sphere," Our task as Christians is to redeem the entire world. We reject absolutely the idea that we should just care about our tribe, and let outsiders bollix up their lives up however they like.

2. Even in a purely secular sense, we are all in this together. If one American group is doing something self-destructive, in the long run it hurts us all. If unwise ideas become currant, it hurts us all. Most Christians think that morality is important, not just personally, but for the health of the community as a whole.

3. The opposition of religion and secularism is the clash of two religions. Secularism is really a religion, in the sense that it holds a worldview that is based on faith that certain things are true. (For instance it's just as much a matter of faith to say there is no God as to say there is. Neither one can be proved.)

And secularism is a religion that aggressively proselytizes. It is pushed on us relentlessly by academy/entertainment/news-media/pop-culture etc. Orthodox Christians think it is just as reasonable to resist this right down the line, as it would be to resist a Muslim faction pushing Sharia Law onto our society.

4. We believe that this is really, under the surface, an attack on the Church. Those organizing the "gay marriage" push don't really care about gays. (If you don't think so, imagine what would happen if gay couples voted Republican!) What they are really aiming at is throwing priests and ministers in jail for discrimination. And forcing Catholic welfare organizations into gay adoptions. It's a wedge issue.

5. We care about gays. An ersatz form of marriage in contravention of God's law isn't really a good thing for them. (See John Heard for a gay Catholic perspective on this.)

6. Catholics believe that marriage is one of the Sacraments. A Sacrament is what you might call an "interface point" between God and man. If the wild-and-crazy idea that there is a god who cares about us humans is true, then the last thing anybody would want to do is muck about with the special modems he invented as means to help us.

There is also a "why don't we butt out?" that can be asked of conservatives in general, rather than just Christians...

1. In this matter specifically, it is NOT true that it is just about "letting people do their own thing." Wherever gay marriage is allowed the immediate next step is ending discrimination. This requires—surprise, surprise—massive efforts by the state, with many laws and programs. For instance, school children must be educated not to think of gays as different--this is happening right now in Massachusetts. In Spain, right now, public documents must not use terms like "grandmother" and "grandfather---"Progenitor 1 and 2" are used, so as not to suggest that male + female is the norm. "Ending discrimination" sounds oh-so-nice, but another term for it is thought-control.

2. The state has never before defined marriage. It has never dared. Up to now it has merely adumbrated the definition that has been handed down from ancient times and Judeo-Christian faith---a definition the pre-dates any modern state. Therefore, to change the definition of marriage is a massive augmentation of state power. One would think that libertarians would get this point.

3. The above is an example of a more general truth. Traditional American culture dealt with many things locally without the need of state interference. And to a large extent this meant imposing Christian morality on people. Libertarians imagine this was oppressive, but the alternative is worse, I think. Once the traditional "understood" rules are lost, then the vacuum is filled with regulations and litigation. Bureaucrats and lawyers and politics.

Does anyone besides me and Florence King wonder why gays are suddenly (supposedly) so into being accepted into the mainstream, to the extent that they want their living arrangements to be treated by law just like the living arrangements of heterosexual couples? Back in the "old days" (when I was a young 'un, cough hack) of the Sixties and Seventies gays prided themselves on being "different" and having escaped the square, dull life of the "straights." They were also widely regarded as wittier and generally more artistic. Even the loud and trashy drag queen act had that bit of burnish from being "not for everyone" especially the "safe entertainment" sorts. Nowadays, however, thanks to the take-a-mile strategies of the GLBT activists, we are daily presented with the full horror of Gays Are Just Folks Like Us, which means they are just as boring and unattractive and lumpen. Some of them even lack a sense of fashion!

I think it's all a plot, a plot to destroy gay culture from the inside. Gays should fight back -- to have their status as outsiders returned! If I were gay, I know I'd want my closet back after the publication of things like Heather Has Two Mommies.

As a cabinetmaker, I have to say that there's nothing quite so crushing as going off to talk about a possible job with a gay couple (male) and discovering they have no taste! It's beyond creepy.

I really wonder if the "Heather Has Two Mommies" kind of stuff is actually produced by homosexuals, or whether it's done by sickly-sweet liberals packaging gays the way Hollywood packaged Sidney Poitier as a sort of white-bread black person?

I call the day I found out gay men were pushing crew cuts, chinos, and those gas-station attendant shirts as the height of fashion "the day the music died."

I was including the enablers and the distributors of Pornography among the Pornographers.
Are they are leftists?. Are there no Republicans among them?.

No doubt there are some. One can be a Republican (or a conservative) in a variety of different ways.

There are, for instance, libertarians and purely economic Republicans, who focus on free enterprise, and would not scruple at selling whatever the market wants.

I myself think this is a catastrophic mistake, because it it the character and values of people in a democracy that determine whether they will resist the seductive lures of socialism. It is the people who are our true wealth, and anything that tends to weaken or degrade them is actually "future-wealth destruction."

There are also lots of Republicans and Democrats who don't think at all about the big picture--the party is just a tribe they happen to be born into, or a social circle they move in.

I have never heard of a present-day American leader speaking out on Pornography.
Even the outgoing president I think never made any statement on Gay Marriage and his Sec of State I read once attended some function to honor or celebrate gay marriage of employees in State Dept.