I liked the article bunches! My only beef is with the prophecy that their gay marriage stance will doom the republican party. I mean, hardcore christian-pandering politicians are not doomed because they let women vote, or because they let black people get married to white people or because they oppose the Jim Crow laws.

I read an interesting thing that said that Christians should not be trying to win people over to be moral by making everything immoral illegal. It's better to just set a positive example.

My prophecy is that the republicans will just be really late getting on board, but then they will accept that it's a fight they should not be fighting in the political sphere. I predict that they will, late in the game, focus their efforts on protecting liberties that allow peeps to have the freedom make good moral choices, rather than merely restricting people's freedom to make bad ones.

P.S. Personally, while I support gay marriage, I sympathize with people who are bigoted because, not that it's any excuse, they are a bit misguided in that they lump the gay marriage issue into a bunch of perceived problems in society today, such as tons of divorces, tons of abortions, tons of premarital frisky, tons of disrespectful pop culture aimed at women (like misogynistic rap songs), and basically just the unhappiness that goes along with living in a culture that is perceived to be so immoral and stuff.

Although, I humbly think that is a bad attitude to have, because society isn't so bad. The characters on friends, for example, while having premarital frisky all the time, are generally considerate and nice to each other. I mean, by definition, they are "friends!" Anyways, a bit of a post-script soap box. People should not measure goodness in such legalistic terms (although having some moral rules is good too).

Please consider another take on this. I am personally opposed to laws outlawing gay marriage and have written letters to the editor of our local paper outlining my discomfort with my Catholic Church's stand on this. Yet I am not willing to take it farther. Why? There is nothing in it for me. I am not willing to spend emotional capital on it. I sent a copy of my letter to an aggrieved gay friend (long story) and heard nothing from him in reply. So I have turned my attention elsewhere. I assume there are others like me, who hate the hurt but don't see it as their battle. I'm not dodging the issue. Well, actually I am. I am dodging the issue. The matter is peripheral to my experience. So as it stands now, two extremes will duke it out for the rest of us. And when the legislators and courts finally settle it, most of us probably won't care all that much how shakes out. I don't write in meanness. I simply think another perspective is needed.

The issue goes hand in hand with a discussion re the basis for morality. If the basis of morality is relative and perceived to be what I think or perceive rather than yielding to an absolute norm, then same sex marriage makes perfect sense -- as does marriage with minors, marriage with multiple partners, etc. If same sex marriage is defended as a personal civil right, then who is to legislate against marriage between parents and children, or between minors, or between numbers of people in multiple partnerships? Or why not with my dog or cat?

If there is an absolute norm, as maintained by Mormons, Catholics, and Protestants, then our culture will be judged ultimately by its adherence to that absolute norm.

If the influence and belief system of Christianity grows in American culture in proportion to its current growth in Korea, Africa, Latin America, where it exceeds the birth rate, the predictions of Dr. Peele will prove to be incorrect. If the influence and belief system of moral relativism prevails, his predictions will prove to be accurate.

What we do know is that wherever currently the issue is presented to the populace for their decision at the ballot box, the results continue to be the same, in every section of the nation. Hence, to relegate rejection of same sex marriage to ignorant, bigoted people is a lame explanation. The alternate and probably accurate conclusion is that the majority of the American populace embraces a belief in an absolute moral law and Law Giver.

This frustrates many in society who for several generation have spent their energies in classrooms, media, and the press attempting to "liberate" the young from such notions.

The gay community (and supporters) should be fighting for civil unions, not marriage, with the same rights. That would likely be an easier first step.

Ben, I totally agree with you about Christians being moral. They should be "shining the light of Christ" to others - not shoving morality down non-believers' throats.

River86 - even the younger generation in churches is becoming more accepting. Openly gay members are being welcomed into some Baptist and large conservative churches. The tide is turning. As for marrying my kid, dog or cat...we will have to fight against that when the time comes. For now, the courts need to let the people decide on gay unions or marriage.

Cheers!
Lee

Where did equality go? When was it possible to put people's rights up for referendum?
How ridiculous does it sound to put "female vote" or "black citizenship" up for vote?

Marriage is a definition, an arbitrary distinction.
Why should it favor straight people over gay people? Is there an intrinsic value that marriage has within it that somehow supports this straight bias?
For example, being a fireman. Fireman in the sense that they are the ones who go off in the truck and enter a burning building. Being an active duty fireman is biased towards physically fit, and non handicapped people. It is reasonable to choose someone who is fit and wheel chair free to be a fireman, and exclude a sick/wheel chair confined person. This is soley based on the demands of the job.
NOTE I am not prejudice against handicapped people, I'm sure there is room for them in the fire department. I am merely trying to show a point about intrinsic values/requirements.

Does marriage have apart from it's arbitrary definition of one man and one woman any inherent qualities that somehow gay people cannot meet but straight people can?
I don't see any.

So, then? Why, should we let this arbitrary definition exclude or ostracize a segment of the population, on no merit?

Bring back equality.
Please.

You state that three states "permanently outlawed gay marriages", but fortunately, these votes will not have a permanent effect...Thank God we still have some plasticity, even in our laws.