Replies

There's even a natural geographic break-line developing. This is going to get really nasty, and for more than just a summer

You're way too impressed with your side. Seriously.

You really don't understand that social conservatives are but a tiny handful of people in a vast ocean of American citizens.

You're not even 10%.
You don't matter much any more.

A lot of the noisy social conservatives will whine and moan. Any nothing will happen.

Unless W gets wise and takes my advice above :) Then you'll never matter again. And you won't be able to hold the GOP hostage anymore.

You really ought to check my comments out more thoroughly. You'd find that my positions on this matter exactly mirror those you are stating here.

Well, with the exception of the 10 percent figure. There are probably 20-25 percent who yet think that morality is critical to the condition of a society, and another 10-15 percent who would lean toward that direction.

I think you'll find that Hair and many others will come to my rescue regarding the matter of whether I am one of the "crazies" keeping W. "hostage".

But you miss, by a pretty fair margin, the kind of impact that this matter will have on the American nation.

Unless W gets wise and takes my advice above :) Then you'll never matter again. And you won't be able to hold the GOP hostage anymore.

Please. If the GOP ever wanted to self-destruct, they would continue to p!ss off the social conservatives. If you were right, about social conservatives making up 10% of the population, I suspect the libertine-arians would be garnering more than 1-2% of the vote.

You're living in objectivist fantasyland. Give my regards to Dagny Taggert.

There is a good reason to back this outside any religious or societal ones. For years the liberals have been trying to implement a nanny state. Telling us where we can smoke, seatbelts, cradle to grave stuff, etc and so on and so forth. This is putting that right back at them. Perhaps evetually they will come to their senses and stop cramming legislation down our throat when we cram it back at them.

They want to control our lives, take our money, and so on - they have no problem invading our lives with what they think is best for us. They have no problem over burdening private business with their many laws, I want less laws, they want more - fine, we will give them more. Maybe they will see what it is like to have your life legislated into the ground.

Marriage is centered around the idea of pro-creation. If gays want to live together, as my friends do, fine. If a company wants to give them benefits, that is up to the company to decide. Government recogizes marriage as a different type of union between two people, one in which the goal is to pro-create and continue to populate the land. There is nothing wrong with sanctioning such a set-up as something different and affording them tax breaks, et al. What people want to do in their private lives is their business, you don't even have to get married - it is an option two people can take if they want to have their committment recognized for either religious or legal reasons. If society as a whole places special meaning to a relationship where pro-creation is possible (dosen't always happen) and as a group decide to afford it a special status that does not mean we are keeping others from being together, it is simply a legalistic was to say we think it is a worthwhile endeavor for the betterment of society.

Gays are not being deprived any more than a farmer who wants to marry his daughter or a goat. Society has simply stated that those things are not what marriage as a recognized institution was designed for. Government can stay out of marriage, and just let people live together and do as they please - which they do (lots of gays live together), but government went a step further and said they recognize a special type of relationship which they felt had a positive affect on society, a man and a woman. If you CHOOSE to participate, by getting a marriage license, fine. You get both the rewards and legal ramifications for it.

Marriage has had, for some great time, had a definition. Why change that definition to please the few?