First, I never said I advocate it. If this issue had never come up, I certainly wouldn't have brought it up, the only thing I've ever advocated is a halt to gay bashing, and that would be without hate crime laws.
As far as heterosexual marriage being "the most basic foundation of society" goes, I'd probably identify extended family as the most basic foundation, and we've gone from having huge houses where a dozen family members live, to small houses where nuclear families, and single parent families live. Nobody voted on that, either. In any case, even if gays get the right to have a civil marriage recognized by the state, nobody's going to take away the rights of heterosexual people to find each other, fall in love, have children, and keep the cycle going, just as its always been done. Nobody's going to force churches to marry gays, when its against their tenets. I don't recall any discrimination suits against the Roman Catholic Church for refusing to marry people when one spouse-to-be is a divorced person.
Or is it your position that words have no meaning at all but what you or Bill Clinton choose to ascribe to them at some moment?
Thanks for lumping me with Bill Clinton, I'm not sure that rises to the level of a personal attack, normally frowned upon in this forum, but I'll let it pass. Words have meanings, but in a living language, the meaning of the words changes all the time. When our Constitution was written, "the people" were considered only white men, over the age of 21, who owned property. They were the only ones who had the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with its Bill of Rights, I'm glad the definition of "the people" has been expanded considerably. Perhaps you're not.
If you support gay "marriage" then you cannot be a conservative because all of your other views must be derivative from that basic desire for fundamental change in the basic millenia old institution.
Did freedom of the press derive from marriage? Did the right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure derive from marriage? Did the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments derive from (etc., although you may get some clever remarks from some folks here on that last one!) Marriage is but one institution in our society. It was a religious institution that became infused with the civil government, and as the civil government is supposed to be religion-neutral in its application of benefits and responsibilities, it is inevitable that either marriage would change, or that government would veer away from marital status as a means of conferring rights and duties. Simply separating sexual behavior from the production of offspring would have caused this change, even if homosexuality did not exist.
Eliminating marriage as a basic foundation for the society(which is what gay-marriagists advocate)...
A very few homosexual advocates from the crazy side have been quoted as wanting to destroy marriage. I don't remember any election, they were not selected to speak for the majority. Using their words and actions to represent what gay people want when they ask for the right to marry, is like using the behavior of the aforementioned Bill Clinton as an example of how most straight people treat their marriage. The shrill voices of a few anarchists do not define the positions of all the members of the groups they claim to represent.
How can one a conservative be an advocate for the overthrow of the Republic?
Here's a little prediction for you: After the SCOTUS finally rules in the next five to ten years that gay marriage is legal, the Republic will still be here. Business people will still risk capital to try to make an honest buck, people will still get up and go to their jobs, and there will still be babies born to heterosexual couples who still go to church. Just like what happened after we allowed interracial couples to marry.