Thank you so much, Brother Arlen, for your excellent and insightful (multiple) replies. There's not a thing you said that I would disagree with. For what you seemed to be saying is something quite uncontroversial to me: The problem is in the culture, not in the political institutions per se. POLITICS FOLLOWS CULTURE. And IMHO you were right to see in ancient Athens a better analog to our present situation than Rome.
Which is why I said, to staunch the bleeding, diversify the political centers, devolve political power from Washington to the 50 centers that are closer to us where we live, where we may have greater personal impact on shaping the public discourse. This is the exact reverse of what the Left has been working at, with incredible success, for over 50 years at least. It'll only buy you some time. But maybe something can be done in that time to get the culture back into a more sane position, by empowering the "grass roots" to a greater degree. Plus you get to try (potentially) 50 different approaches to public policy questions, and then get to see what "works." It has been remarked that the states are great laboratories of sociopolitical experiment. I think that's true; but Washington entirely obviates this process. States conform to its will, not the other way around.
For Plato, the polis -- political society -- is man writ large. For Marx, political society is man writ small. But to make the latter work requires man to really be small in the great scale of things.
The point of both cases is, if man, by and large, is disordered, so will be the society of which he is part and participant. Thus we have a cultural problem, which inevitably drives the political. In the end, we get what we "deserve."
Work needs to be done on the cultural side, before political realities can be shaped. Marx knew this -- very, very well. And masterfully exploited this knowledge. And that is why the America we know and love is dying, right in front of our very eyes.
Each one of us has the ability to change the world in one way or another, even if only that small part of the world in which we walk. The kicker, though, is that we must begin that change within ourselves. Lately, I've been spending more time talking to people face-to-face than I've spent talking to good and true friends on FR. That way I can see in their eyes the impact of what they're suddenly thinking about for the first time.
The biggest change I've had to work on within myself is my natural inclination to walk away - or look away - when someone is acting "anti-social". I used to believe that people like that will pay "someday". Now I ask myself, "Why should we all wait for someday? Why not start the process with a down payment, and let them hear why their conduct is simply not acceptable?"
Some will undoubtedly say that such a public stance is a good way to get my ticket punched, so to speak, but there are ways to show one's disapproval without immediately instigating a physical confrontation.
One the other hand, I mentioned to someone just last week who was bewailing the perceived lack of direction of the Confessing Church Movement, that if it's a nest of rats that need killing, and you can't do it yourself, at least have the common sense to hire a rat killer. And then, insist that he kill every single rat - 'cause leaving even one will soon result in a new nest.
Anyway, let's not bemoan the direction of society at large until we have at least turned around ourselves. ;^)
Going back a few hundred posts back on this thread, you will find the following:
Despite the basic rule that a marriage valid where contracted is valid everywhere, the courts and validation statutes have universally recognized a number of exceptions, which may be condensed and simply stated as follows: A marriage valid where contracted will nevertheless not be recognized as valid in the forum state if such recognition would be contrary to a strong public policy of the forum state. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 283(2) comment f (1971) (marriage valid where contracted will be recognized as valid everywhere unless it violates the strong public policy of another state which has the most significant relationship to the spouses of the marriage); e.g., Fattibene v. Fattibene, 183 Conn. 433, 441 A.2d 3 (1981) (Connecticut need not recognize marriage that violates strong public policy of state); In re Estate of Loughmiller, 229 Kan. 584, 629 P.2d 156 (1981) (listing exceptions to validation statute, including marriage that is polygamous, incestuous, or prohibited by the state for public policy reason); K. v. K., 90 Misc. 2d 183, 393 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Fam. Ct. 1977) (court called upon to decide whether law of Poland, which requires civil ceremony in addition to religious ceremony, was repugnant to law of New York); Kelderhaus v. Kelderhaus, 21 Va. App. 721, 467 S.E.2d 303 (1996) (general statement that marriage's validity is to be determined by law of state where marriage took place, unless result would be repugnant to Virginia public policy).There are three commonly recognized categories of marriages contracted in another state that will not be recognized in the forum state. First, marriages that are contracted by domiciliaries of the forum state in another state for the express purpose of evading the law of the forum state are deemed invalid. E.g., Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934) (marriage entered into in Florida, in violation of D.C. prohibition against remarriage within certain amount of time after prior divorce, invalid in D.C.); Barbosa-Johnson v. Johnson, 174 Ariz. 567, 851 P.2d 866 (Ct. App. 1993) (appellate court holding that evidence did not sustain finding that parties had married in Puerto Rico for the purpose of evading the law of Arizona). See generally Uniform Marriage Evasion Act, 9 U.L.A. 480 (1942) (N.B.: The Uniform Marriage Evasion Act is superseded by the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, and was officially withdrawn from consideration by the drafters in 1943).
Second, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are of a level of sanguinity that is forbidden in the forum state. E.g., McMorrow v. Schweiker, 561 F. Supp. 584 (D.N.J. 1982) (rule recognizing foreign marriages does not apply to incestuous marriages); Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 170 A.2d 726 (1961); In re May's Estate, 305 N.Y. 486, 114 N.E.2d 14 (1953).
Third, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are not deemed of sufficient age to marry, as determined in the forum state. E.g., Wilkins v. Zelchowski, 26 N.J. 370, 140 A.2d 65 (1958).
Given this strong tradition of a state's right to refuse to recognize a marriage validly contracted in another state if that marriage would offend the fundamental public policy of the state, there appears to be no reason for enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act. The states already have the ability to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage should they so choose. A state's public policy regarding same-sex marriages may be adduced from the presence or absence of both statutory prohibitions and decisional authority regarding same-sex marriages. E.g., Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act 201, 9A U.L.A. 170 (1987) (defining marriage as a personal relationship between a man and a woman).