Replies

Well, we're starting to go in circles here and you're beginning to misstate what I've said. (Not egregiously; on the whole you've dealt quite reasonably with a subject I'm well aware you have strong opinions about.) I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I apologize if I've misrepresented your views. I'll let you have the last word if you'd like to take a minute to correct that. However, it's not just my opinions that are strong. I'm attempting to bridge the gap between Americans who only know how to talk about law in terms of their own religious ethics, and the restrictions we have placed in the interest of representational government on our motivations for law. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We can have laws that seem at face value to be "religiously motivated" if people can explain why they believe those laws have inherent value. That families have an interest in protecting the limited resources government offers them, that Americans are committed to natural family structures, that there are good arguments in favor of encouraging natural family structures are all rational arguments against dilluting or corrupting our official view of the marriage relationship. Call it "religious" if you like, but many of us are trying to save the family from encroachments of cultural relativism and the humanist notion that we can re-engineer ourselves and remain (or even improve on what it means to be) human beings.