at an absolute minimum it doesn't involve officially normalizing homosexuality by making homosexual marriages legal.
I agree with that. I think government should be out of marriage. Part of that is due to being offended that I need to get a marriage license. Part of that is due to not wanting to be forced to accept homo marriage. I saw the writing on the wall with this 5-10 years ago along with court precedence with Loving v Virginia. I know my church won't recognize homo marriage. I don't think yours will either. I don't believe in Epicsopalianism/Anglicanism, so that's irrelevant to me.
I think the one argument that killed us long term on this issue was opposing gay marriage as "defending marriage." The problem is what's the biggest threat to marriage? Homos? or Divorce? When there is a 50% divorce rate in society, and probably an adultery rate close to that, we are already in crisis when it comes to marriage and the family.
I think the best we can do is control what we control in how we live our lives by example, and to live in areas where our ways are supported.
I've said for a very long time that the Calvinists and Lutherans have more in common with the pre-Reformation Roman Catholic tradition than we have in common with much of what passes for modern evangelicalism. We share a common Augustinian heritage. But that is a side issue.
The question I think you need to consider is whether civil government has — or should have — a role in promoting basic morality by punishing wrongdoing and encouraging right conduct.
It's an old saw to say it, but it's true — “Don't tell me government shouldn't legislate morality; all governments legislate morality. It's only a question of whose morality should be legislated.”
Saying that human freedom and choice must be valued and respected is a statement of someone’s values. That system of values, when worked out to its logical conclusion, will lead to a very different society than the one given to us by our Founding Fathers.
Conservatives and libertarians both agree on limiting the role of government. Federalists, states-rights advocates, and many other types of constitutional students who may have different views of what the Founding Fathers intended but still respect the “original intent” view of the constitution all agree on limiting the federal government vis-a-vis the state governments.
Where we disagree is **WHY** the civil government needs to be limited. That “why” question is very important in dealing with the question of homosexual marriage and responding to libertarians.
Civil government exists for a reason. The homosexual marriage debate is exposing a serious fissure within the conservative movement, and I'm afraid it's going to break conservatives apart. That breakup may not happen in conservative places like southwest Missouri where even a moderate Republican like Sen. Roy Blunt had little use this week for a serious of questions peppered at him by one of my liberal colleagues about homosexual marriage. It may well be a problem where moderate Republicans don't have a strong set of personal convictions (or at least constituent complaints) against homosexual marriage and will be tempted to give in to the demands by a very small percentage of society to let them do something which is destructive to society, namely, redefine marriage.
I am afraid this battle will not end well. Our culture is going the wrong direction, and going fast. My state is becoming much more conservative as the years go by, but I can't say that for a lot of other places in America.