McCain probably wouldn’t nominate such judges.

If the Rep Party needs to choose between the millions of voting pro-life, God-fearing folk, versus the dozens, maybe tens of dozens, of elitist moderate secular Reps more willing to demonize Christians than terrorists — I think the choice will be easy.

Too easy, in fact. Most anti-Christians in the Rep top echelons will be about as honest as … Obama on gay marriage.

The Reps need more anti-elite real conservatives, like Sarah Palin. Or Mike Huckabee.

I disagree with your best outcome scenario which in my opinion would be that the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman would remain the definition of marriage.

Of course gay activists are trying to use government recongition of their “marriage” to make their lifestyle seem normal to the rest of us. But if government is the source of legitimacy and morality in our social lives, then whatever virtue we ever had a society is already gone.

It baffles me why people who care about morality and know it is the foundation of our society continue to seek it from politicians. Have you looked at that lot lately? How many members of congress, even Republican ones, would you trust to baby sit your kids? How many would you loan your car to? How many would you pray that your kids grow up to be like?

Fact is, government is a poor source of moral virtue in a society, because government is where compromise must be made. 300 million people are not going to agree on anything. Even if there is general agreement on an issue (e.g. murder is bad), there’s disagreement on the details (what should the punishment be? The electric chair? Life in prison? 20 years?). Compromise is easy and good for some things, like taxes. If I think the tax rate should be 10% and you think it should be 30%, we compromise on 20% and we can both walk away feeling okay. But moral issues don’t compromise very well, do they?

Which is why they’re best dealt with in civil society. But you’re helping the Left move morality under the government’s ever-increasing umbrella, where you will be forced to compromise your morality to no good ends. You are the one stepping out, hand in hand with gay activists, onto the slippery slope of government-authorized morality. I’m the one standing back here on solid ground saying “Please come back. Churches marry people, not governments.”

If you persist in this political wrestling match with gay activists on that slippery slope, the best outcome you can achieve is a watered down, heavily compromised morality promulgated by the government. A morality that few people take seriously because it is so obviously deficient. The worst you can achieve is losing and allowing the Left to create another toltalitarian state as amoral and evil as all those that have come before.

Well, there is an aversion to marriage because the concept is being cheapened. I doubt aversion is the best way to put it. More like, who cares?

Once society no longer discriminates to afford special recognition to the sorts of relationships that tend best to replenish a healthy work population, then we more quickly become like Italy and other European countries, failing to replenish populations, in danger of soon being overrun by other cultures.

So, it is hardly without reason for a society to wish to confer more favorable tax incentives on those sorts of relationships that most tend to replenish a healthy, socially responsible work force.

But, why do leftists, libertarians, and bluebloods (”LLB’s”) think it such a great thing that a country or culture should idly preside over its own disintegration? An odd sense about LLB’s — do they not tend to be so tolerant as not even to notice when someone else is “chewing off their arms,” so to speak? Do LLB’s ever sense (before catastrophe, I mean) when the time for tolerance is over?

A small part of my posted comment was responsive to yours. Most was for “KP-type” bluebloods. However, assuming you side with them on social issues, I should say that I doubt Gay activists want a “right” to “marry” because they are being deprived of anything they could not achieve with a contract or civil union.

Rather, I suspect they mainly want to force the rest of society to recognize or say that they are “normal.” More than anything, Gays want their behavior “normalized.”

Now, educated social conservatives do not especially care what Gays do in their bedrooms. But we do care when some group uses mob tactics (and purchased politicians and judges) to try to force us, and schools, to bless to our children all manner of behavior as being “normal.”

I know you will say there is no slippery slope, that you and society will surely draw a line when polyamorists point to the Gay marriage example and demand their own “equal rights,” and that the lecher class will surely be stopped from lowering the age of children they prey upon (even though schools will already have been used to ready such children to the normality of it all), and that Nambla (you know, the running “joke” with Stewart and Colbert?) would not be allowed to follow.

But, you know what? I do not believe you.

After all, it is not like there are not cultures that do practice such things. And why should you, as a sophisticated, cosmopolitan libertarian, ever think to interfere with the “diversity rights” of whatever culture may next swamp us?

But, humor me — if you do have spine to accept the burden of proof before advocating a violent change in historical American notions about marriage, please draw a line of argument or empirical evidence against polygamous marriage and polyamory. Please, do share.

Until then, I remain of the opinion that Gay marriage (at least when solemnized and favored by government with tax incentives) is a slippery slope — an unnecessary, unhelpful, fundamental (i.e., not minor) danger.

Simply put, the notion cheapens traditional marriage, against which there is already too much aversion for the safe replenishment of American society.

So far, most voters agree. And there is little reason to suppose that most young voters, once a few years away from their sophisticated professors, will not be educable to agree.

Bottom line: LLB’s are far more concerned to try to “educate” Social Conservatives than Social Conservatives are with keeping Bluebloods in the party. If Gay marriage is the issue deemed important enough to send Bluebloods running to Obama, then I, for one, am content that their masks are off.