Love and manners in a time of culture war

Great, perceptive piece, Rod.

But you've really answered your own question. Bigots are not due manners, respect, and civility, and the whole point of the gay rights movement is to claim that those who hold to traditional marriage and those who held to racial segregation are moral equals. As long as that is their gambit, culturally and politically, they have made an atmosphere of respect, manners, and civility impossible.

The conservative friends you spoke of in your previous post are so, so wrong. The economy will come back, as it always does, even after the great depression. The culture war will grow worse and nastier, with legal persecution of traditional Christians increasingly a reality in law and society, for a long time to come.

I personally have moved beyond being a "patriotic American," since the US is already largely ruled by unelected judges, and thus has no real claim to be a constitutional republic anymore. The incommensurable discourse McIntyre speaks of will only grow worse, and what is moral, right, and good will increasingly be seen by our cultural commissars and political and judicial rulers as immoral, wrong, and bad.

I long for and will work for the return of a free republic. But that return depends on shared world-view-- the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview--that is already marginalized by ruling elites and is becoming increasingly rare in the population. Without a widespread revival of traditional religion, there is literally no hope for the future of America as a free republic, as opposed to the politically correct tyranny imposed by our ruling elites.

As Father Neuhaus argues in an upcoming book, people who hold to traditional beliefs are or will be in exile in Babylon, suffering the same fate as the Jews in that time. But better a Jew in Babylon than an aristocrat or king there, because history will ultimately be resolved by God, not men.

I have been greatly saddened by the lack of civility and ability to see both sides of the question in the SSM debate. Rod's assessment (and MIacIntyre's) are spot on. People are talking at not with each other. I hope Rod is wrong about the trends, however. The fact that young parents overwhelmingly voted for 8 might indicate how people sometimes change opinions as they age. If people keep having children that is. It might be more important than we in the U.S. realize to regain the original meaning of marriage. Most of us cannot get our minds around depopulation since we have been warned all of our lives about overpopulation, but the Europeans and Japanese know all about it. Basically, women need to have children, something a traditional ideology of marriage encourages--I won't say mandates, but strongly encourages, for the nation to survive. We are headed in the depopulation direction ourselves. What our friends across the two ponds have found to their great and growing distress is that once the problem is noticed it is very hard to turn the problem around.__ And yes--I understand that all heterosexual couples can't have children, but doing so for people who can is still part of the ideology of marriage as it has traditionally been understood. My chief reason for voting for 8 is that I believe it is important to have a pro-child ideology of marriage that ensures that as often as possible children will have a mother and father who stick around to raise them. I think ideology matters.

"We no longer possess a belief that marriage has a purpose beyond itself, that it signifies something greater than the will of individuals wishing to be married. This is the result of a radically individualist culture that views ethical truths as little more than statements of preference. What we've lost is, to use a philosophical term, a teleology - that is, the belief that our actions are all geared toward a final goal, and must be judged by whether or not they lead toward, or away, from this goal."

Remind me again...how many wives did King Solomon have in the Bible?

Or to put it in a non-smartalec way, marriage has always been about "something greater than the will of individuals wishing to be married", but most of those "somethings" have absolutely nothing to do with any of the objections to gay folk getting married.

If Rod and folks like him eventually lose the fight against gay marriage, it's largely going to be because they built their opposition on ignorance or obvious falsehoods like "marriage has only ever been one thing".

Mike

"This about pure nihilistic hatred, you people hate religious people and will not rest until every one who even slightly disagrees with you is supinely licking your boots and singing the praises of homo-sex."

Let's compare the number of gay folks killed for being gay by Christians and "christians" and the number of Christians killed for being Christian by gay folks before ranting hysterically about "pure nihilistic hatred", shall we?

Mike

"Why can't GLBT,people simply accept and take advantage of the civil union law already on the books in California? Seems like a reasonable compromise. Can't we just leave it at that and get on with life?"

Why are folks like you getting so worked up about the word "marriage" if it's just a point of semantics?

Mike

Why are folks like you getting so worked up about the word "marriage" if it's just a point of semantics?

That's the point. Social conservatives don't think it's a matter of semantics. They think that marriage is a thing, an objective thing that exists regardless of how we think about it or whether we're even doing it. That's why they offered the GLBT community "civil unions" if what they wanted were the pragmatic benefits of marriage.

If the definition of marriage were a matter of semantics, then the GLBT community might have a point: social conservatives would just be using language to define GLBTs right out of the larger community, sure. But it's not, and they don't: we aren't.

Christians, and perhaps Catholics in particular, seem to have lost their bearings on "what marriage is for." In all the internet posts I read, not once did I see a position advanced for the sacramental nature of marriage. Who knows: maybe it was out there somewhere. I'd be pleased to see it and read it.____Instead, prop 8 opponents seemed happy to make it all about the children. Which is a real headscratcher.____Over 100,000 American children have no legal obstacle to being adopted. While I don't know how many of those kids could be in a permanent home before this Christmas, adoptions on all of them could be finalized well in time for next Christmas, and probably Mother's and Father's Day, too. If the will was there.____All told, over half a million American children languish in foster care. If pro-child advocates were serious, we would see a lot more action on the adoption front. That we don't is a telling indictment of the narrow scope "pro-child" means in this country.____As a parent of an adopted child--not adopted in infancy, I'll add--I have the moral heft to suggest that the pro-child voices in this tussle lack the credibility to connect kids to gays.____If someone wants to claim gay people shouldn't live together, have sex, or receive any recognition of being able to cross-reference legally or medically, a simple suggestion: just say it. Unless you're willing to adopt or advocate adoption as something beyond a parent-centered activity, please leave the kids out of it.

"That's the point. Social conservatives don't think it's a matter of semantics. They think that marriage is a thing, an objective thing that exists regardless of how we think about it or whether we're even doing it."

Yes, and that "thing" has included polygamy, arranged marriages and marriages performed only for political, diplomatic or economic benefit. All of which was condoned by the religious thinking and authority of its day. Throw in the fact that many of today's heterosexuals treat marriage like disposable tissue, something everybody except the Catholic Church seems to tacitly accept (and when's the last time they made a big fuss over divorce law and policy in this country?), and we're left with the fact that marriage has been defined in different ways in different places and different eras. What is the justification for drawing this line in this time and this place?

Rod has touched on this, but too many folks think of themselves as Leonidas at Thermopylae when it comes to SSM, when they're really Pyrrhus at Apulia.

Mike

"Rod has touched on this, but too many folks think of themselves as Leonidas at Thermopylae when it comes to SSM, when they're really Pyrrhus at Apulia."

Things didn't end that well for Leonidas. Maybe a better analogy from that same time would be Themostocles at Salamis.

William R

I'm sure Andrew is deeply concerned that you consider him a laughing stock. Why do you bother reading him, then?

Can we detangle this issue a bit?

(1) Many Catholics don't believe in divorce. Great! Don't recognize it! You are entitled to your personal, religious perspective. You should also feel free to convince others that your viewpoint is the only truth. Stand behind that! You are not going to win the young generation by codifying all moral choices into civil law. The freedom genie has been out of the bottle for a long time.

(2) Just as people are entitled to their religious beliefs, people are entitled to be homophobic. People also have a right to not like fat people, blondes, or individuals whose ears poke out.

(3) I appreciate keeping vigilant about the potential for the Anti -Measure 8 protests to become a violent. It is a typical trait of the pc-left (eco terrorists, PETA, many labor unions) to go down that road. But from what I've seen, most of the Anti-8 Protests have been non-violent. Gays - even leftist gays - do not have a monopoly on obnoxious protesting tactics.

(4) As far as the economic repercussions - does anyone believe no one has ever boycotted a gay-owned business? A gay director who owns the rights to his play should be able to decide where it gets performed. Welcome to the free market - at least for businesses that aren't "too big to fail."

(5) If the whole problem is with the word marriage - sheesh - call it a domestic partnership. Call it "fabulously intertwined." The goal should be for two consenting adults to be able to establish a contract with each other that has some legal protections – and they should be able to do so with a $50 license rather than a $5,000 lawyer bill.

(6) Of course there are going to be stupid lawsuits against churches - just like lawsuits against McDonald's for hot coffee, lawsuits against Oprah for saying she won't eat beef, lawsuits against employers because someone told an obscene joke. This is America. We have 80% of the world's lawyers and no tort reform. Has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Let's compare the number of gay folks killed for being gay by Christians and "christians" and the number of Christians killed for being Christian by gay folks before ranting hysterically about "pure nihilistic hatred", shall we?

Sure, lets. Lets start off with how many gays have been killed by Christians recently. Pretty close to zero, not even Fred Phelps' gang kills gays (and I don't consider them to be even close to Christian). Not all straights who are offended by gays are Christian, and the ones who get violent about it are almost never Christians, since getting violent violates the ethos of the New Testament. And for that matter, how many of the assaults against gays were brought on because most straight men don't like having their asses pinched by another man? I mean, except in places like the Castro district, how are they supposed to tell someone is gay, unless they have done something like this?

Stephanie and others commenting here,

Our protest on Saturday here in Richmond, VA was peaceful, positive and friendly! We had representation from BOTH the LGTBQ community and straight allies, which we need in our fight for rights! We had a local MCC pastor too.

i think that these are a positive way to vent and mobilize people to take issues more seriously, where they can talk to and write their elected officials and other activism. Ghandhi and Martin Luther King, JR. are two of my heroes and examples.

Yelling back and forth is not good, but honest and open dialogue can be helpful if both sides can remain compassionate and empathetic. Certainty and being right about all things serves no one if love is forsaken.

My partner is from the Bay Area, and i lived in LA for 5 years. We currently reside in Richmond, VA but will be moving back to CA next year. We came out to CA at the end of October to get married b4 the election. We are now in legal limbo over the passage of Prop 8. i hope it is resolved before we move back. We are no threat to marriage! We love and cherish one another and are committed deeply to each other and the health and growth of our relationship.

Best regards,

Adele

What I find irritating about Rod's posts lately regarding gays supposed unwillingness to compromise is that I cannot tell if he is being just naive or intentionally disengenuous. Come on, do you really think for one minute that Maggie Gallagher, Erin, and their anti-gay marriage cohorts would be willing to accept any compromise that started "Gay and lesbian couples get marriage licenses entitling them to all of the same rights as heterosexual couples, but ...."

The Mormon church, whose virtue Rod has been trumpeting so loudly the past week, won't even agree to any legal recognition of same sex couples whatsoever in Utah. As best I can tell, if it was Erin there would no such thing as legally recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships either.

Larry:

"Sure, lets. Lets start off with how many gays have been killed by Christians recently. Pretty close to zero, not even Fred Phelps' gang kills gays (and I don't consider them to be even close to Christian)."
*********************************

I agree. Murderers of GLBT people shouldn't generally be referred to as Christian. It is still interesting that in a survey of inmates who have killed GLBT people, the vast majoity of them said they had a right to kill "fags" according to the Bible. I am sure that much of that was simply post-rationazation for the crime, and that the murderer hadn't opened a Bible since childhood. It still bears examination that so many violent people think they have a Christian mandate to do something like this to me...

'...Gaither’s slaughter in February 1999 was one of the nastiest hate crimes in recent history. Just up the road in rural Coosa County, the 39-year-old was slashed with a pocketknife, beaten with an ax handle, and burned on a pile of tires by two guys who did the deed because “he was queer.” '

or this...

'There’s the literal rope that bound 18-year-old Scotty Joe Weaver, the first of this summer’s victims, to a chair in his trailer in rural Pine Grove, where he was beaten, strangled, stabbed, mutilated, and partially decapitated over a period of several hours. His body was then dumped in the woods and set on fire, just like Gaither’s.'
http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2004/12/out-mag-is-alabama-really-worst-place.html
* * *

"And for that matter, how many of the assaults against gays were brought on because most straight men don't like having their asses pinched by another man?"

***********************

Ah, the good old "gay panic" excuse.

The queer made me kill him.

And Rod wonders why we use the word "bigot" when you see atrocities like this...
" Massachusetts
Chanelle Pickett
In November 1995 in Boston, MA, Chanelle Pickett (23), a transgender woman, was beaten to death by her date after he discovered she was biologically male. In 1997, William Palmer was convicted of assault and battery, which carried a maximum sentence of 2 1/2 years."

Nope, he never had a clue he was with a pre-op trans woman. None at all.

Riiigghhhtt.

He got oral sex or some such, and then he wasted her. The jury bought it.

Here is a real fun one from Washington DC:

Ukea Davis
In the early morning of August 12, 2002, in Washington, D. C., Ukea Davis (18) an African-American transgender woman, was killed with her friend Stephanie Thomas (also transgender) in a hail of automatic gun-fire from a passing car. Their assailant then returned on foot, walked up to their car, and fired another burst of more than 20 bullets into their dead bodies. Her murder remains unsolved. The two girls had been bullied so severely at school that they feared returning and had recently dropped out.

http://www.gpac.org/press/victims-state.html

Want more?

Joel Robles
On August 15, 2004, in Fresno, CA, Joel Robles (29), a Latina transgender woman, was stabbed
20 times after a sexual partner discovered she was biologically male. Estanislao Martinez (23)
pleaded guilty to the murder and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Robert H. Jones
On October 15, 1997, in New Castle, DE, Robert H. Jones (30), a transgender woman, was
stabbed to death. Jones was attacked in her car after her assailant learned she was biologically
male. Ronald Taltoan plead guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to a prison term of 10 years.

The "fags" made me do it.

This past year, prosecutors from around the country met in order to see how to ban the "gay panic" defense. As long as juries still think it is fine to burn, butcher, decapitate, rape and shoot us, we will keep using words like "bigot".

While we get up in arms about gay marriage or same sex marriage, we should also as Christians, Jews, etc get in a tizzy over how heterosexuals have started to demean marriage. Divorce rates have not really changed in 30 years. Heteros get married produce kids and then for some reason decide that the mate they have chosen is not good enough or they tire of them. So what do they do, they leave each other and leave the offspring to deal with the consequences largely because the selfish parent needs to find himself or needs space from the other, or cannot control their libido.____While I do not support same sex marriage, we need to shore up the traditional marriage. Same sex marriage has come about because the gay left has noticed, quite correctly, that we heteros have already cheapened it for ourselves. We have gone about and debased marriage through access to easy divorce. The homosexual left throws that back in our face and they say, "what's the big deal????" They want to be the same. Get married, adopt a kid or two and then after a while sour on the mate and then get a divorce so as to move on. More work for divorce attorneys and no doubt some "partners" making out like bandits in the settlement.____However, in CA, there is a civil union law that homosexuals can use. That particular law allows for essentially the same rights as heterosexual couples in terms of contracts, child custody and hospital visits(a non starter really because the cases of non access can be counted on hands and toes). What they really seek, is to redefine the meaning of marriage as it has been understood for 5000 years. The homosexual left not only wants the civil autorities to recognize same sex marriage, but they want religious institutions to abandon their objections as well so that "Spiritually Minded" individuals (couples) can have their choices sanctified by a religious officiate.

Ah, the good old "gay panic" excuse.The queer made me kill him.

Not "gay panic", really, I wasn't really talking about anybody getting killed. But if I pinch a women on the ass I can expect to get slapped. A gay man can expect the same, or maybe a little stronger if he makes an unwanted advance. Not murder, but a punch in the nose isn't really out of line. And like I said, except in places like the Castro district, how else would a straight man know a "non-flamer" was gay?

And none of your example showed the slightest hint of the perpetrator being a Christian. As for "the Bible sez ...", well Satan can quote scripture, too. The way some gays talk you would swear that these guys had just stepped out of a Bible study in order to kill a gay.

re: "Todd November 20, 2008 12:43 PM
http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/ Christians, and perhaps Catholics in particular, seem to have lost their bearings on "what marriage is for." In all the internet posts I read, not once did I see a position advanced for the sacramental nature of marriage. Who knows: maybe it was out there somewhere. I'd be pleased to see it and read it"

My faith has the benefit of modern day scripture on the sanctity of the family and marriage; I am sure other Christian faiths have similar documents for one to draw strength upon.

It is titled simply enough "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" and may be viewed at http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

Thank you for your thoughtful discussions.

Yours in Christ,
Bobby Nichols

Really, please explain where in the history of mankind has a marriage been other than between a man and women with the purpose of naturally begetting children and raising and educating them? This is not a religion thing. It is a history thing.

from Kenneth Anderson's review of "Foreign Law and the U.S. Constitution" (Hoover Institution June/July 2005)

...Much of the U.S. civil liberties tradition is an unabashed outlier with respect to the rest of the world — the Miranda warning and the exclusionary rule, Roe, and many other protections far less obvious.

...why assume that the views of those who live globally, internationally, or transnationally are indeed morally universal? Why assume that they have no particular interests and no partiality?

...Jed Rubenfeld says, "the business of the constitution is to express the polity’s most basic legal and political commitments. These commitments will include fundamental rights that majorities are not free to violate, but the countermajoritarian rights are not therefore counterdemocratic. Rather, they are democratic because they represent the nation’s self-given law, enacted through a democratic constitutional politics."

...Justice was very careful to make this criticism not only from the standpoint of his judicial philosophy of originalism — which would, by its nature, rule out nearly all foreign law but the special, historical English law relevant to the Constitution’s founding — but also from the standpoint of a non-originalist.

...Originalism is plainly incompatible with the broad use of foreign and international legal materials because, as a theory historically grounded in a particular document as written by particular people at a particular time, it looks not at all at how other peoples in other countries today do things. Still less relevant to it is any sense of world public opinion, the opinion of the “international community,” and so on.

"Really, please explain where in the history of mankind has a marriage been other than between a man and women with the purpose of naturally begetting children and raising and educating them?"

Historically, many native American tribes (at least 130 that we know of) recognized some individuals as "two-spirited". Those people were believed to have two souls - one male and one female. Two-spirited people dressed in a mixture of male and female clothes, married spouses of the same biological sex (who were not themselves considered two-spirited), and often held very prestigious positions within the tribe - shaman or even chief. Wikipedia can tell you more.

These days, "two-spirited" is used as a term for gays and lesbians of American aboriginal descent, especially in Canada.

I was going to post to this tread's topic, (Kathleen Parker’s column premise) but after scanning down,...surprise- surprise… seeing the usual subjects inevitably turning this into (still another) thread about homosexuality and abortion, I decided instead to make a grilled cheese sandwich.

Christians, and perhaps Catholics in particular, seem to have lost their bearings on "what marriage is for." In all the internet posts I read, not once did I see a position advanced for the sacramental nature of marriage. Who knows: maybe it was out there somewhere. I'd be pleased to see it and read it.____Instead, prop 8 opponents seemed happy to make it all about the children. Which is a real headscratcher.

Actually, not. The nature of marriage is a matter of basic natural law. In arguing over whether permanent, monogamous homosexual relationships qualify as "marriage", we haven't even come up to the level of the sacramental, so there's no need to invoke it. Among devout Christians who accept the sacramentality of marriage, there could, I suppose, be some light shed on the nature of natural marriage by reflecting on the relationship of Christ and his Church, but I think most Christians assume that that's not a real compelling argument in this culture.

The point about "the children" is to focus on the real social, not individual, goods of marriage that would be threatened by attempting to "redefine" the relationship the way we want. As many people have pointed out, bad concepts of marriage (like, for instance, polygamy) are not just bad for the people involved, they're bad for the rest of the society.

"What was I thinking, of course the typically chaste, in fact, down-right virginal gay male would never make an unwanted pass at anybody. (And yes it has happened to me, it was a while ago when I was college, and no I didn't hit him, but I've known people who would.)"

And this happens how often to you?

Most gay men, (not being one myself, but I know several) I would imagine are just not interested in straight men, and would move along if declined.

JonW

"As many people have pointed out, bad concepts of marriage (like, for instance, polygamy) are not just bad for the people involved, they're bad for the rest of the society."

You mean:
"I don't like it, so therefore I think it is bad for society. I know what is best for society, because I say so, and I know that is a fact. I say it is a fact. I know it is fact because I said so, at least I think I did. What was I saying?"

Re: It might be more important than we in the U.S. realize to regain the original meaning of marriage.

Just how original? Roman era? Bronze Age? Neolithic? Even older?
At least in modern times marriage has been about two people in love devoting their lives to one another. Ideally at least. We look down our noses at people who marry for reasons other than love (see: "Goldiggers") and even if two parties are amenable to a marriage of convenience their union is seen as something not quite respectable. The problem the traditionalists have here is not that the meaning of mariage has somehow changed-- it hasn't at all. The modern concept of marriage dates back at least to the 18th century cult of sentimentality, perhaps to the medieval cult of courtly love, perhaps even to early Christianity's inisistence on the spritual equality of men and women and the grudging "If they can't contain then let them marry". What has changed isn't marriage, but rather the tolerance afforded gay people. Given that gays are accepted, and that marriage is seen (quite traditionally) as a union of lovers it's very difficult to craft an argument that excludes them.

Re: Most of us cannot get our minds around depopulation since we have been warned all of our lives about overpopulation, but the Europeans and Japanese know all about it.

Actually, too many depopulation worry-warts have no concept just how exponentially huge the population growth of the last 150 years has been. If the population of Europe fell to half its current numbers there would still be a good deal more people in the Continent than when Victoria began her reign. If it fell to a fifth its current numbers there would be more Europeans than when Columbus sailed the deep blue sea.
Neither Europe nor any other part of the globe is going to run out of people any time soon (assuming no catastrophic die-off of course). Even Russia with its awful demographics will remain well above its early modern numbers indefinitely.

Re: Basically, women need to have children

People used to have lots of kids because half of them, on the average, did not see their 18th birthdays. And because children were a net economic plus for their parents. Neither is true nowadays, and we need to accept those realities. (I certainly hope no one longs for the childhood mortality rates of yore!) Consider our lower fertility God's way of reducing our excess numbers without bloodshed or suffering.

Here is some commentary from that notorious lefty rag "Forbes"

Everyone needs to sign on to a Pax Americana for the 21st Century. All churches should have the absolute power to decide which unions they will recognize and which not. But no church may invoke state power to block the like liberties of other churches.

We need free entry and open competition on divisive cultural issues, as everywhere else. We mustn't let the shape of the law turn on the outcome a moral debate in which neither side can persuade the other. It's best to keep the state out of the marriage business altogether. But if it stays in, as a matter of prudence it should adopt a nondiscrimination rule. Divide the pain with a live-and-let-live approach, pleads the hassled libertarian.

Richard Epstein writes a weekly column for Forbes.com. He is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and a professor of law at the University of Chicago, visiting this fall at the New York University School of Law.

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/11/17/libertarian-marriage-gay-oped-cx_rae_1118epstein.html

At least in modern times marriage has been about two people in love devoting their lives to one another. Ideally at least. [...] The modern concept of marriage dates back at least to the 18th century cult of sentimentality, perhaps to the medieval cult of courtly love, perhaps even to early Christianity's inisistence on the spritual equality of men and women and the grudging "If they can't contain then let them marry". What has changed isn't marriage, but rather the tolerance afforded gay people. Given that gays are accepted, and that marriage is seen (quite traditionally) as a union of lovers it's very difficult to craft an argument that excludes them.

You're exactly right. But the issue at hand is whether this is a good definition of marriage. That is, does it accord with the best practices of our culture for establishing society and government, raising virtuous and healthy children, and providing men and women with the relationships they need to become truly strong and virtuous members of society? (BTW, I'm sure there's much I've left out.)

Just because we've recently limited our explicit definition marriage to "two people who loooove each other" doesn't mean that it was a good idea to do that, and people might be brought to their senses by the fact that it does (as you rightly say) logically end in gay marriage.

People who really know good marriage from the inside know it's a lot more than "two people who loooove each other", even if they wouldn't be able to articulate it, necessarily.

But people marry for love (or at least we hope they do in the ideal world). Money, children, housework, etc. are not part of it.

But they are part of it. That's the point. The part we often talk about in our sentimental art is the gushy gooey love, but the actual wedding vows were wiser:

"for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sickness, and in health"

These are not merely stages for the acting-out of romantic love: these are the meat and potatoes of a real, full life lived together. And everyone who hasn't had their common sense scrubbed away and replaced with a fresh coat of ideology knows it. (I stole that last line from Jonah Goldberg.)

All good marriages that I've ever witnessed have intrinsically involved (and were acknowledged by the participants to have involved) a lot more than romance. Every single gosh darn marriage advice book I've ever read says, "Romance is merely the icing on the cake. It is not the foundation." Thomas Aquinas says marriage is first of all a friendship.

Just because romance is all people talk about (and it isn't) doesn't mean that's all they experience it as and all they know it to be. There are some who do, I agree. They're called divorcees.

lancelot,

"Without a widespread revival of traditional religion, there is literally no hope for the future of America as a free republic"

Pray tell, exactly which "traditional relligion" would that be? Baptist? (If so, which version? Southern Baptist? National Baptist? Heck, Anabaptist?) Or should it be Catholicism? Or what about Presbyterianism? Or - hey, America touts its 'freedom of religion' - why not Judaism? (again, which branch? Both the Reformed and even the, ahem, Conservative branches advocate for same-sex marriage. And remember, for jews, Judaism is "traditional religion".) What of the Anglicans? Why not Buddhism? Hinduism? Taoism? Shintoism? Universalist/Unitarianism?

Sorry, there's simply no such thing as "traditional religion", let alone a revival of THE One True Religion (TM). Too many people have died over the differences for that to happen, let alone for it to effect a "revival" of a "free" repbulic. Gay Americans are NOT "free" under your rules. And your dismissive contempt for judges who are doing their job holds no hope for a just America. How sad.

ms,

What does "to regain the original meaning of marriage" mean? So many here (and elsewhere) have posted on the various "original meanings" of marriage, so it's unclear.

You SAY "And yes--I understand that all heterosexual couples can't have children", but I don't think you really do. If you did, you would vote to take away their '"right" to marry too, since they can no more procreate than I and my husband can.

Such hypocrisy.

Anglican,

You (falsely, imo) decry gay people as 'haters of religious folk'. Guess you haven't heard of the many faiths (and their members - people of faith, all) that do (or would) marry gay folks. I am a lifelong member of faith communities (served as a deacon for 10 years, a sign language interpreter for 18 years, etc.)

You ignore the hate from the religious right - many's the time right here on Rod's blog gays and their relationships are compared to beastiality, necrophilia, rape, "marryin' a plant", child molesters, rapists, etc. Try and tell me this is not hateful (nevermind bald-faced lies - aka the bearing of false witness, aka a SIN!).

Be healed, I say.