On the other hand, I think it's important to be steady and true when pointing out what you think is unjust or untrue in the world. I think it's somewhat of a myth that progress always takes place through the plodding machinations of political discourse. Sometimes you need a lightning rod. Sometimes you need a fire. Sometimes you need a stampede. Change often happens as a result of crisis; so, while we're having a "fruitful dialogue" or whatever that means, it's also important to understand where the poles of a debate are.

For instance: I'm having a hard time stomaching the current actions of the Pope. On the one hand, religious organizations can adopt and impose whatever rules they want in relation to their members. The members can follow those rules or not, stay in the church or not. On the other hand, when a religious organization attempts to force even non-believers to live by their rules, it's permissible (as Dean has said many times) but problematic. If our political sphere is unduly influenced by any particular religion, then is there still a secular space in which a variety of religious and non-religious viewpoints can exist?

In short: as a spiritual leader, isn't the Pope's primary responsibility to his own flock? I'm never going to be a Catholic, and I don't want to live under Catholic law. "Sinful" is not a justification for "illegal".

John,

All law is either an imposition or an allowance of a morality - what we make legal and illegal is what we are ok with morally. "You cannot impose values" is just a code word for "I don't like those values, so please shut up".

Catholics, just like everyone else, are allowed to bring their views into the public square and agitate for whatever laws they want to enact in a constitutional manner. As a Catholic, I am sick and tired of this soft bigotry against my Church and my "deeply held beliefs"...its getting so that believing Catholics need not apply for any government position. I'd like a complete ban on abortion except for the life of the mother, for instance - and if I can get a constitutional majority in favor of this then, dammit, thats what we'll have - and it wont be me forcing you to be Catholic, it will be a vast majority of your fellow citizens, Catholic and other, deciding that abortion is a barbarism, if we ever get to that point.

You don't want to live under "Catholic law"? I guess you hate those laws against murder: this is a "catholic law" as much as a law against the marriage of homosexuals would be.

Fair enough. I would agree that sometimes you do need a lightning rod. On the other hand, just daring people to contradict you and calling them names when they do, in my experience, fails to affect change far more often than it succeeds.

As we've seen in America, countless Catholics disregard the church on issues such as sex outside of marriage, birth control, abortion, and many other things. I suspect it's possible to get most of them to disagree with the Pope, since most of them already do. Yet they're still Catholic and still love the guy--most of them, anyway.

This pope was instrumental in helping to bring down Communism in Poland and then in the rest of Europe. He gets major props on that from me. Unyielding belief in the face of criticism and even mortal peril gave him the strength to help face down the mighty Soviet Union. But there's a flip side to that coin: it also drives his position on things like abortion or gay marriage.

Note also, by the way, that unlike some Protestant groups, the Catholics for the most part are not particularly obsessed with this issue. Openly gay men are even allowed in the priesthood--although they are expected to remain chaste like all priests, of course.

Anyway, I think my point would be that pissing all over one of the most beloved and revered figures in the world is probably not smart strategy here.

At least, that's what I think.

Mark: I think that what John Kusch meant by "Catholic Law" was "Catholic-specific law", as determined by the Pope/Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, I'm sure of it, and I'm sure you realized what he meant, too.

John: You made some cogent points. However, while I agree with you in general ("...it's somewhat of a myth that progress always takes place through the plodding machinations of political discourse. Sometimes you need a lightning rod. Sometimes you need a fire. Sometimes you need a stampede.), many extremists on the Left side of the spectrum wouldn't consider this a course of action to take in extremis, but would use this as a gambit in every single issue ("The city budget for homeless shelters didn't get an increase this year? Revolution Now!!") This is one of the reasons for the Left loosing credibility in the eyes of the general public.

Mark, as a non-Catholic I do tend to see it your way. If the Catholic Church comes out swinging hard against Apartheid in South Africa--which, by the way, it did--is that forcing Catholic values on others? This Pope specifically took hard line stances against Communist oppression, and Apartheid, and helped to end both. Wasn't that forcing Catholic values on others?

The Catholic Church still speaks out regularly against slavery. Many people don't realize that slavery is still going on in the world, but the Catholic church knows about it and condemns it. Doesn't that mean the Pope is interfering with other cultures and religious views?

We tend to think that there's something different about religious values and non-religious values, but I no longer believe there is one.

I dunno, people have a right to get mad if they want, I am just a bit bemused by it. What do they expect the pope to say? That his church's 2000 year history and doctrine must all be rewritten?

The funny part is, in this particular instance, I take the Pope's opposition to gay marriage as a sign that the movement toward gay marriage in the West is simply accelerating, and looking more and more inevitable.

I fully expect people to vote in accordance with their morals. And it so happens that many of our laws, in accordance with the constitution, line up nicely with people's moral values. Where I have a problem is when people try to legislate, using only their religion as their justification, something which is in direct contrast to something that is/should be upheld or protected or whatever by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.

I think it's important to go about making change both ways. By working from the political side, campaigning and rallying, etc. And by talking to people you know and having those one-on-one interactions.

And sometimes it just feels better to yell.

Some of the attacks directed against the Pope seem to be arguments from analogy that treat him as an elected official who should represent the interests of his constituents. On the contrary, the position of Pope is a kind of trusteeship in which each individual defends and directs the institution of the Catholic Church to the best of his ability.

Admittedly, there have been "political" Popes in the past who didn't care a whit about the Church or its teachings, but Pope John Paul II is not one of them. Like Andrea wrotes, his pronouncements are in line with traditional church teaching. Just because Andrew Sullivan or Glenn Reynolds doesn't like what the Pope has to say doesn't mean the Pope should stop expressing his opinion. Sullivan in particular should stop his public agonizing and leave the Church if he doesn't like its teachings.

A final point: American liberal and lapse Catholics, as well as their European counterparts, should also pay attention to the fact that they are much, much, much more liberal than Catholics in Africa, South America, and parts of Asia. When the Pope speaks to the Catholic masses, he's also speaking to conservative Catholics in the developing world, men and women who are increasingly leaving the Church to join the more conservative Protestant churches. Thus, the Pope's losing battle is not just against the slide towards libertarian sexual mores in the global North but also the increasing numbers of "ex-Catholics" in the global South, and while he can't win the battle in the West, he can talk strongly and hope to stave off Catholic losses in the South.

Dean,

As there are "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose which parts of Catholicism they will obey so, too, are there "cafeteria don't legislate morality" people out there - when the Pope comes out against the death penalty he gets plaudits from the same sort of people who say he's "imposing morality" when he comes out against abortion, or what have you.

As for me, I'm a plain and simple Catholic - and not a very good one, at that: I struggle mightily to obey the rules as laid down and fail regularly at same. But, I subscribe to every iota of Catholic theology; you'll never find me in opposition to the Pope ex cathedra. As an American I will fight for what I think is right politically - and as I cannot, perforce, get an unconstitutional law enacted (except temporarily at worst) its absurd for someone to accuse my like of trying to impose my theology on anyone.

Erica,

What is wrong with someone arguing that his particular theology should be made the law of the land? I mean, inherently? We'd vote it down in a New York second, so whats the worry?

I think the basic conflict I have with the Pope's position on gay marriage is that I do not want to prevent him from being Catholic, while he wants to prevent me from marrying the man I share my life with. If I have my way, he's still free to be Catholic, and so is everyone else in this country. If he has his way, I'm still not free to marry and enjoy the legal protections that currently married couples take for granted.

If I get my way, my liberty increases, and the Pope's does not diminish. If the Pope gets his way, my liberty decreases, and his increases.

While homosexuality might be a vice or a sin to some, it does not qualify as a crime. The arguments against gay marriage now are precisely the same arguments that were used against interracial marriage in the past. I understand the strong feelings people have about marriage and whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry; yet their feelings don't change the reality: same-sex relationships are worthy of legal protections, whatever the religious issues involved. Whether they are moral is up to each individual. I'd rather not have Congress make that decision for all of us.

Now, some would say that the Supreme Court made a decision for all of us when they struck down sodomy laws. But they didn't: each of us still has the right to decide whether sodomy is moral. Each of us still has the right to decide whether we will engage in it. What's lost is the right of the State to imprison us for making such decisions. State interference in our sex lives must now pass a higher standard to proceed. I expect that rape, incest, polygamy and child molestation will continue to be illegal, because there is a demonstrable state interest -- peoples' safety and liberty is at stake. But sodomy laws were legislation by sensibility, which is why they were struck down.

It's so, so hard for me to respect some religious viewpoints when they're being aimed at me like a weapon. There are billions of religious persons who live their lives without trying to control mine. My problem is with the few who want to stop me from pursuing my happiness in a way that does not demonstrably harm others.

I find some Catholic beliefs hard to swallow, yet I wouldn't outlaw Catholicism. At the same time, the Church (as differentiated from individual parishoners) finds homosexuality immoral, and would actively seek to outlaw gay marriage. They even uphold sodomy laws. There is a difference here between what I'm seeking and what they're seeking.

John Kusch,

What you have to do, at least for people like me, is to convince me that allowing you to marry a man is a fundamental, unalienable human right. As an American, I hold that our rights are self-evident - this is the standard to which I'm going to hold you whenever you try to inject a novelty into our society under the rubric of human rights. Its a high standard; very high. But it has to be - rights are something we send young men out to fight and die for. Before I'll do that, I'll want to be absolutely convinced that you are prevented from being a human being unless you are allowed to do a certain thing.

The burden of proof is entirely upon you - you make the catagorical statement that same-sex marriages are worthy of legal protection, but you provide no proof for this view. Same sex unions were until very recently entirely unknown in human history - various views of homosexuality have been taken by varied societies past and present, but no society has ever married two people of the same sex. My view of the reason for this is that marriage has a point: children.

Its not about getting sex. Its not about being with the perfect soul-mate. Its not, primarily, about the individual. As we want our species to continue (presumptively) we must have a mechanism for the orderly creation and upbringing of the next generation. What what constitutes family has changed over the years, with the "nuclear family" being only a fairly recent development (say, over the past 100 years or so) the bedrock thing about a family - the successful rearing of the next generation - has never, ever changed. You want to change it.

You want to marry - why? From your post, it would appear so that you can have society's seal of approval upon you and, of course, the nifty tax benefits a marriage confers. But you don't need society's approval to be yourself and the reason for the nifty tax benefits is to make it easier for the children to be brought up.

Additionaly, you have the right to marry already. As I said, marriage isn't about sex nor is it about you being with the absolute perfect person for your life - its about making a family and raising children. You are free to marry any member of the opposite sex you can talk into going along - just as I am. Unless you are going to try and sell me the notion that unless you are having a particular type of sex with a particular type of person (in which case you'd be about as shallow as a person can be), this should not dismay you if, that is, you want to be married for the proper reasons.

Mark said: What is wrong with someone arguing that his particular theology should be made the law of the land? I mean, inherently? We'd vote it down in a New York second, so whats the worry?

Except that any Defense of Marriage Act is a law of the land based on a particular theology.

As an American, I hold that our rights are self-evident....

The right to a gay civil union is self-evident to me and many others, gay and straight. Last I checked, gay couples can produce and/or raise children. Either with outside help or by adoption. By your standard, infertile couples should not be allowed the legal benefits of marriage.

And, there are over a thousand benefits associated with marriage. Thank you for implying that gay people only want to get married because we are money-grubbers.

Erica,

Unfortunately, its not good enough for it to be self-evident to you; it has to be self-evident to the vast majority. You must convince by argument that your humanity is impaired if you are unable to marry a person of the same sex.

Lotsa luck on that - because sex is a big, fat zero as far as defining what a human being is; so, you have to show, instead, that allowing you to marry is vital to the carrying on of what humans of right ought to be able to do.

More importantly, and here's the thing you've apparantly missed - there is absolutely zero in my argument against based upon religious strictures; you cannot say that its mere religious animosity which makes people opposed - its the manifest lack of proof your position has brought forward.

If sex is a big fat zero in terms of defining a person's humanity, then procreation is a big fat zero and about 99.5% of all human culture is a big fat zero. Sex is so ubiquitous in our culture and in our daily lives and perhaps it's become completely transparent to some people, except when illuminated by "exotic" sexualities like homosexuality. But it's still there.

I'm encouraged by Mark's assertion that I can already marry -- that means he acknowledges the fact that my relationship with my partner is, in its way, a marriage, and that what's lacking here is legal sanction.

That makes my job a lot easier.

Why don't I approach this from the opposite angle: marriage is not an inalienable right, neither for straight people nor for gay people. Marriage -- in the legal sense, not the religious sense -- is a societal institution designed to protect the financial interests of families, in order to make them more stable. Children can be involved, but they don't have to be -- as is self-evident in our society.

If we can all accept that marriage is not a right, then we can acknowledge that it is an institution that's come about by consensus. In that case, it is also demonstrable that the consensus regarding what a family means has been changing steadily over the past fifty years or so. Single-parent households are families. Unmarried households are families. Same-sex households are, by many, considered families.

If you can accept that, you can consider the proposal that the legal protections straight marriages enjoy would also be beneficial to same-sex couples. Straight couples use marriage to create a legal bond that helps support a stable union. Gay couples want that same stability.

I'd argue that the point here isn't gay people proving to the disapproving majority that marriage is an inalienable right. The point is that we are making the case that what's good for them is good for us as well.

The fact is that gay people will continue to exist and will continue to enter into pair-bonds for the same emotional, financial and social reasons straight people do. The question is: since we can't be prevented from doing so, is it in the interests of fairness that our pairings have legal stability?

Even if I paid a really great lawyer thousands of dollars, Matt and I wouldn't have the same legal benefits a married couple gets by signing one document. Yet Matt and I are likely to stay together as long as (if not longer than) most straight marriages. I can't prove whether homosexuality is moral or immoral. That's an individual choice. I can argue, however, that regardless of the moral issues, the legal issue is clear: long-term pair bonding, especially that which involves children, deserves legal and financial stability. It's good for the couple and it's good for all of us Americans -- millions and millions -- who think that gay people forming homes and families is a good thing.

In short: I concede that marriage isn't an inalienable right. Nor is it a right for straight people. But I argue that the contract that protects straight families can and should protect gay families as well. Our families matter to us a great deal, Mark. We're no better and no worse. We deserve no more and no less.

John Kusch,

Excellent argument - I admit that I had not looked at it from that angle before; the whole debate has been framed as one of basic human rights that its never occured to that the argument could be taken to the other extreme - boiled down to its entirely utilitarian elements.

Given that...

Still, you're going to lose on that one - if its not a human right then the general societal feeling that marriage just isn't for two homosexuals will hold the field. You might win a debate, but you'll lose the election.

You're problem is, after all, entirely a political matter. Change doesn't happen over night - and gay rights is still very new in the human conception. What has gone fundamentally wrong - and what I warned several gay rights people about some years ago - is this gigantic desire to "hurry up" what can only come about via slow societal evolution, if its to happen at all.

Personally, I don't think it'd ever happen - nor did I want it to. Call me what you will, but living a homosexual life is silly and narcissistic; pointless, lacking in value or merit. Its the ultimate form of self-indulgence and it has no place in the serious business of life. You may have been born with an inclination to be attracted towards members of your same sex but this does not mean you had to go and act upon them - nor does the acting upon these impulses make you a better person. We are civilized human beings, Mr. Kusch, and this means we control our impulses and we don't rationalise our desires. Have everyone give into their deep-seated, genetic impulses and we'd have societal break-down in short order - I'm not about to make an exception in the case of homosexuals.

We all have a purpose in this life - having sex precisely the way we want cannot, to a serious mind, be the reason for living. We have our rights, which are quite small and we have our duties, which are gigantic; your duty is to see to is that the next generation gets into maturity with at least as good a situation as your generation had...you can, by the by, indulge yourself sexually but your primary duty is entirely outside of this indulgence of yours.

In the end, I think that most people instinctively go with me on this - this is why we vote routinely 60-70% against gay rights proposals when they go on the ballot...this is why GW, faced with a re-election campaign is giving off the signals that he'll back a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman - because its a winning issue; anyone who comes out on the other side of it will get clobbered (outside of a few precints in the much, much more "liberal" areas of the country).

And, also, it has nothing to do with bigotry or the Pope telling us what to do - I bear no ill will towards you nor against any other law abiding, decent human being who happens to be gay. At bottom, I'm rather indifferent to what you do - and so are most people; and thus you've got the vast amount of tolerance you enjoy these days. Its another matter entirely, of course, if you try to make what you do in private the defining thing about you and then turn about and de-facto demand that society applaud.

I think that's pretty much the irreducable meat of the argument, Mark. Your perception is that homosexuals, in general, define themselves by specific sex acts that they like to engage in. I, on the other hand, see my sexuality as only one part of an integrated human nature; and that it is, in fact, the distaste of the heterosexual majority that has defined me by my sexuality.

This notion that homosexuality (which, yes, contains the word sex) is defined by a set of sexual behaviors is an untruth by omission: we all know that sex is deeper and more meaningful than mere copulation, whether or not children are involved. What I think opponents of gay marriage fail to grasp is that those of us in same-sex relationships who want our unions to be respected by the law (which is, I might add, very different than being respected by churches or by soeciety) aren't arguing from our sexual behaviors. We're arguing from our emotional and familial bonds. We're arguing from love.

The fact that this is difficult for many people to accept doesn't change the truth of it. I'm not living with my boyfriend in the hopes that, some day, crowds of neighbors, clergy and government officials will gather outside our bedroom window and applaud as we exchange bodily fluids. I'm living with my boyfriend because I love and cherish him. I support him. I nurture him. I honor him. We are as functional a couple, as real a family unit, as anyone I know.

If homosexuality is ultimately narcissistic and without merit in the context of civic duty, then heterosexual marriages without children are equally as futile, and equally as undeserving of governmental or civic approval.

Let's put it this way: when you hear that a man and a woman are getting married, do you immediately imagine them engaged in sex acts? There's a good chance you don't, as you understand that marriage is so much more than sex -- though sex has its place. Why would you reduce a same-sex relationship to only its coital aspect, while ignoring the real emotional, social and cultural aspect of it? And furthermore, why would you then accuse the homosexual of defining themselves by a sex act, when it was you who actually defined them thus?

This notion that gay marriage is about government-sanctioned sodomy is myopic. You may not see the merit in a gay union, Mark, but does your belief invalidate the millions -- millions -- of people who see that merit? Is my mother wrong? My siblings? Our neighbors and friends? Is it really possible for the last word on gay marriage to be "no" when in reality, so many of us have already said "yes"?

This is about who owns the truth. I believe that no one person or organization does.

If anyone is against homosexuality or gay marriage, it would make sense for them to 1) not be gay and 2) to not marry a person of the same sex. Does that belief entitle them to make that decision for others?

As Dean has argued many, many times, this is a new thing. Gay rights is a new thing, and gay marriage is a new thing. However, from my perspective, gay rights and gay marriage are concepts that I've lived with for all of my 33 years. While I can be sensitive to the cognitive dissonance this might cause in others, my sensitivity does not invalidate my views.

I rather suspect that it's your side that's on the long-term losing side of this argument, Mark.

A lot of the resistance to gay rights movements has been the concern--a not entirely unjustified concern, by the way--that some gay rights legislation amounts to special rights. Gay people get furious about this whenever you bring it up, but the fact is that anti-discrimination laws have often led to minorities being given special treatment and special considerations. Ditto for women. Whether it's the ridiculous racial discrimination that goes on under the name of "Affirmative Action," or the sexual harassment laws which have been used to pillory and vilify men, the fact is that laws to "protect rights" often amount to special rights for the "protected" groups.

Gay rights activists who cannot admit this are hiding their heads in the sand.

That said, most of society has come around to a broad social tolerance (and by the way, tolerance is NOT a bad word) of gays, and the truth is that polling on the gay marriage question shows it's a two steps forward, one step backward case--and the younger people are, the more likely they are to support it. Even such respected conservative sources as the National Review and the Weekly Standard, while expressing doubts about the concept, are beginning to concede that it looks like gay marriage is inevitable--and that the Republic will likely not collapse as a result.

Because, of course, there are decent reasons to support it. Gay people being abused by the system by being denied visitation to their loved ones in hospitals, denied rights to stay in homes they've lived in their whole lives because their lovers died, and so on. There's a certain basic question of justice that most people are able to see here.

My mother-in-law is a proud Catholic. She views homosexuality as sinful and loves the Pope. She also says, "Gay marriage? Yeah why not? We're all sinners. Live and let live, life is too short." (John Kusch needs to meet more people like this--there are a lot more of them than I think he realizes.)

Okay, you think homosexuality is silly and a self-indulgence. Maybe John thinks you're a blowhard. You know, whatever. But I'll bet you'd find areas where the two of you agree on other issues--in fact, I'm positive that that's the case.

Fact is, I do think you're probably on the losing side of this issue in the long run, Mark. And while you may think a gay marriage amendment would pass easily, I personally think the odds are stacked fairly well against it, for several reasons.

First, many of the much-reviled and feared "religious right" organizations, like Focus on the Family, have declined to endorse it and have said that they think they have more important things to worry about.

Second, because a Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3rds majority vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by 38 states within a certain time period. There are multiple opportunities for the leadership in either House, or in at least 13 states, to prevent the votes from even being taken, burying them or tying them up in committee. There are plenty of Democrats who would support such an amendment, but a number of Republicans who would not.

I do think recent Supreme Court decisions could well inflame resentments--usurping democratic processes tends to do that--as I think more about it, I doubt it's going to be a long, seething anger that stays forever. Fact is, most people do have more important things to worry about, and most people these days have openly gay people in their lives, often among their loved ones.

Somehow, ancient Greece managed to thrive and prosper despite widespread homosexual behavior. So did Rome. Nor do I think any sane conservative would suggest that these societies fell apart because of that.

No, I do think you're going to lose on this one Mark, I really do. I do think that those who favor gay marriage would do better to stop vilifying their opponents, and instead concentrate on the issues of basic justice involved. But most of them seem to be doing that.

Because that's really what it boils down to: justice, vs. the questionable notion that marriage only exists because the state sanctions it.

And by the way, let me point out that the last time we had a serious effort to pass a Constitutional amendment was the 1970s. It was called the Equal Rights Amendment. It had the support of a majority of Americans in the polls, and the support of a majority of politicians in both political parties. Pretty much everyone was convinced it was a no-brainer and would pass.

It, uh, didn't.

Because, while it had the support of the majority of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and of the President, it didn't have legs in the long run. It sailed fairly easily through the House and Senate with majority support of both major parties.

But then the debate moved to the states, and individual people began debating it in earnest There began to be real concerns, real questioning of the implications. Individual citizens began debating its merits, and questioning both its necessity and the possible long-term implications of it.

Feminists were mortified to find out that, in the end, a majority of women came to oppose the amendment. And it died.

The fact that there are already "evil dangerous religious right groups" who are expressing a lack of interest in this marriage amendment. Your presumption that it's an easy sell is, I think, mistaken.

There is a very strong social conservative argument for opposing such an amendment. Actually, there are several. These arguments will come to the fore even if this proposed amendment makes it to the floor of either the House or the Senate--which is hardly a given.

Because there's this too: doesn't the Congress have more important things to worry about than whether or not Vermont might let those queers next door ratify their relationship legally? I mean, seriously?

In the long run, what I'd like to see is a society in which Mark has the right to his opinions on homosexuality, in which he retains the right to speak out against it, in which he continues not to engage in homosexual relationships or homosexual intimacy, and in which he withholds his approval of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage. Even today, there are people who disapprove of inter-racial marriage; yet it's still legal. I don't want to take Mark's voice or his opinions away.

At the same time, I want the old adage of "live and let live" to extend both ways. There is a saying favored by Wiccans that goes something like, "Harm none, and do as you will." Of course, Mark will argue that gay marriage will have a harmful effect on society and the nation -- primarily by turning it into a nation he personally disagrees with. But there is a difference between injuring one's sensibilities and injuring one's dignity, just as there is a difference between breaking someone's heart and breaking their legs.

I'd like to be on the record here that I find hate crimes legislation deeply disturbing. Murder is murder. Assault is assault. Attempting to police the values of those who beat and kill others is not only impossible -- it's inimical to the values of a free society. I encourage all who hate homosexuality and/or homosexuals to do so. I invite it. Bring it on, as a famous Republican put it. Let's debate it out in public like we have here.

As for anti-discrimination laws, that's a stickier wicket. Personally, my feeling is that public institutions -- that is, all institutions that receive government support -- should be barred from discrimination based on class or status issues, including race, religion and sexual orientation. Private institutions, on the other hand, should be able to discriminate however they choose to -- and to have that discrimination made as public as possible, so that the reap the societal benefits and detriments of such discrimination.

Yet, when we look at distribution of wealth issues and large corporations, one could easily argue that Enron, for instance, receives government money. The current level of government interference in business makes public/private distinctions difficult to make.

Oh, and Mark: if you're married, I respect and honor your commitment. Marriage isn't easy, I know. Whether or not you know that I know.

John Kusch,

I'm trying to think if I said that gay marriage would be harmful to society - I don't think I did; what I don't want is to demean the genuine purpose of marriage and family just to make some people feel better about themselves. Its not good enough, for me, that someone want something - or even that millions of people want something; it has to have a fundamental purpose if its going to be a fundamental altering of the way we've heretofore done business - its always good to keep in mind that I'm a conservative, ya know...to innovate is not necessarily to improve.

Prove your case - prove to me that the act will accrue a net benefit to society; specifically, since we are discussing marriage (and my view of marriage being that its primarily concerned with the creation and rearing of children) you must show me that gay marriage will enhance our ability to create and rear children.

As for me, I've thought very long on this - and have had very long discussions with gay rights people (some of whom are my friends - though I do, as you may imagine, sometimes grate upon their nerves): I remain unconvinced on both the matter of justice (I don't think its unjust to deny you the right to marry and man) and on the utilitarian nature of the argument (I don't think that you marrying a man will help).

Dean,

Time will tell - but I've only been wrong once in a political prognostication: I never imagined that we'd actually nominate Dole in 1996. I'm pretty good at this.

The comparison between a proposed DOMA amendment and the ERA is not a good one - ERA was a bit of early feminist fluff; DOMA in the constitution will only be in response to a State Supreme Court demanding that Utah accept gay marriages performed in another State (the current federal DOMA wont stand up in Federal court vis a vis the full faith and credit clause). If the MA SC does what everyone expects it to do - legalise gay marriage - then the political donneybrook resultant will make whats going on in CA these days seem a mild political fracas.

Roe was a singular thing - and it can't be repeated; the American people are in no mood to have judges dictate their laws anymore - especially on a matter wherein the people routinely vote 60-70% against. The problem wont be getting 2/3 in Congress and 3/4 of the States - the only problem will be making the process orderly as people rush to support the amendment.

Also, don't count on the kids - as has long been said, anyone who isn't liberal at 25 has no heart and anyone who isn't conservative at 50 has no brain: Kids change. The kids are also, especially in the case of young men, in favor of abortion on demand - but as people age they get much more sensible about these things.

The currently-proposed marriage amendment would have a devastating effect on States' rights to decide the marriage issue for themselves. To distinguish this from Lawrence v. Texas, which forbids States from proscribing adult consensual sex, the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment) will forbid States from allowing gay marriage, whether they want to or not; and furthermore, not even domestic partnership or civil unions would ever be permitted for straight or gay people.

Mark, I can prove to you that gay marriage will assist in the rearing of children. Children require not only emotional stability but financial stability. Married couples are more financially stable. Ergo, gay couples with children will do a better job of raising them if they're married.

Should gay couples have children? Luckily, that isn't up to me and it isn't up to you. It's up to the parents.

Yet at the same time, I categorically reject the notion that our main duty is to rear children. It isn't a duty, Mark. It doesn't need to be enforced. It's in our natures. It happens and will continue to happen, whether marriage exists in its current form or not. I find it difficult to conceive that procreation needs protection -- procreation is practically impossible to prevent.

If my partner and I ever adopted kids, I'd want to be married. I'd want them to have two loving parents who have entered into a contract that would protect those children no matter what happened to us. I would want the law on their side.

But if we never adopt kids, I still want the option of marriage so that we can protect one another. The stability of our union is our choice, and it's our business. The idea of having to come as a supplicant before -- well, I don't know who, really -- and beg our case, prove our love, show our worth -- that's really contrary to the values of a free society. You don't need to justify your relationship. Why should I? What business is it of yours?

You're not "society". You're just a guy. What's your approval to me, or vice versa?

John Kusch,

Me? I'm nothing to you - as you are to me; we blog at each other a bit and thats pretty much all there is. If we passed each other on the street we'd never know - though if you are wandering thru Vegas I recommend the Italian restraunt at the Santa Fe; off Strip, but really good food. This being Vegas, no one will so much as bat an eye at you and your partner - even hand in hand (Unofficial Motto: Do whatever you want, just don't bother the other gamblers).

As for why you have to justify yourself to everyone else - this is because you are attempting to inject the novelty into society. The burden of proof is always squarely upon the innovator - and things shouldn't happen just because some people want them to.

As I said, I think your case is lost before it even starts - but, have at it: I may be wrong. I'll argue against and eventually we'll work something out which will be tolerable at least to 55% in a Gallup poll in which case 99% of all politicians will sign on to it - and that will be that.

As an aside, it isn't your specific duty to raise children, but it is your duty to ensure that the raising of children comes off with as little trouble as possible. If you marry, however, then one of the freely taken duties which might accrue to the married estate is the raising of children.

I think that if there's anywhere we agree, Mark, it's on the importance of raising children right, if you choose to have children. Because there's no such thing as a "breeding license" (as I hope there never is), it's imperative that each person who chooses to either have or adopt children is as informed as possible, as accountable as possible, and as supported as possible. I come from a large, formerly-Catholic family: I'm the youngest of seven. My parents went through bloody hell raising us for various reasons, including the fact that theirs was a second marriage with children from the first. They made mistakes, as all parents do, but we're all alive and surviving rather well, considering the circumstances of our upbringing.

Because of the difficulty I saw my parents and my siblings go through, and because of the difficulty I went through, I'm intensely interested in child welfare and, more importantly, family welfare. At the same time that I think heterosexual families -- married or not -- are worthy of societal support, I think that homosexual families should be supported.

I take a naturalist view on procreation: it's in our bones. Even gays and lesbians have a common desire to bear and raise children; our sexuality does not blind us to our connection to the human family. Procreation will happen one way or the other, and if there's any duty upon us, it's to make sure that however people make their procreative choices -- whether married or single, straight or gay -- that the government do as little as possible to hinder their growth and success.

We're living in a time of "small government = good government". We don't trust the government to collect our taxes, to manage our economy, or to teach our children. Why, then, would we trust the government to regulate marriage?

Did I just miss it, or did nobody here take on Noonan's assertion that rights must be granted by the majority? That you don't have a given right unless you can prove that you inalienly deserve that right?

I think that represents a gross misreading of the philosophy and purpose of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, not to mention the IXth amendment specifically.

Also, I wonder if he considers my childless marriage to my wife to be "silly and narcissistic; pointless, lacking in value or merit". That seems like rather a vicious insult to me, calling the most meaningful aspect of my entire life frivolous.

Its a good question as to why government gets involved in marriage at all - but, hey, it is involved, isn't it? Deeply, massively involved - over-involved. Until we can work out that government has no business in regulating how people form their life unions, it will be a subject to debate as to who shall be allowed to do what to whom (and lotsa luck on getting government out - tax credits for kids and mortgage interest deductions are just two of a long list of things you'll have to do away with).

As for the "former Catholic" thing - no such thing: once a Catholic, always a Catholic. You are not, perhaps, a believer at this moment - but I know that your faith will be restored to you in time. Thing about being a Catholic - it means you never have to say "I lost". :o)

My parents are both excommunicate, and I was neither baptised or confirmed. I'm afraid I never got into the flock in the first place. It's a comfortable place for me to be.

However, your hospitality is noted and appreciated.

Owen: while my rights are self-evident to me, unfortuantely the current situation is that they aren't self-evident to a majority of Americans; and because the majority have sanctioned deep government intrusion into the marriage contract, I have to make my case or I'll never get anywhere. I don't like having to justify my existence, but I'm heartened by the fact that I *can*.

John,

Ok, now I'm curious - in a world where Ted Kennedy still hasn't been excommunicated, how on earth did your parents manage that trick? Or was it a de-facto excommunication by their actions?