First, I’m not religious and don’t “oppose gay marriage.” I understand that homosexuals are just like me, except for their orientation, which is biological. At the same time, lost in this “debate,” is the whole point of state-sanctioned marriages. (The issue isn’t gay marriage per se, since a growing number of churches will acknowledge the union. The issue is state recognition.) The only reason the state gave a crap about people getting married was because 1. children would be created, and the state had a vested interest in who would care for them, and 2. women were dependent on men for nearly everything. The state needed to know what man was carry for what woman.

By definition, #1 doesn’t apply to homosexuals (I know, some hetero couples can’t have kids, and gays adopt, but the point stands) and while #2 applies much less to women in modern times, it seems to matter even less to gay couples. The financial benefits (governmental and private sector) were rooted in the recognition that a woman may be home raising children. It’s hard to get worked up over the need for Steve the lawyer to receive partner benefits so Richard, the web designer, can stay home and care for the poodle.

Obviously, for partners to be actual partners and live together, legal arrangements though civil unions are necessary. But “marriage”? Society needs state-sanctioned heterosexual marriage. The cold fact is it doesn’t really need gay marriage, for practical purposes. But the symbolism – eliminating dual standards – is strong. Again, I don’t “oppose gay marriage” but I can’t shake the feeling that, since there is little need, it’s mostly symbolic.

As for those crafty white male Christians…it’s safe to say that few belong to an actual White Male Christian Advancement League. Few think collectively, and even fewer give thought to preserving their dominance. To whatever extent they do think as a group, they hardly invented the concept of wanting to preserve and expand their power. The Democratic primary right now is a pretty good (as in bad) example of raw identity group competition. Plus, colleges are now 60%-40% female, with the gap probably growing. Whites will be a minority by 2040. So, the “white male” dominance will continue to decline. I suspect that, hand-ringing over the religious right aside, Americans are becoming less religious too.

It’s really not at all surprising that white male Christians dominated politics for so long, since they dominated the feeder groups of politics: business, law, etc. But, for those keeping score, it’s changing.

I get pissed off every time political issues are addressed at church – that’s NOT the place to debate it. I may be Christian, but I don’t like being lumped into the “fanatical right wing” category because that’s not me.

Good topic and I’m hopeful more people will chime in on this.

Even if it’s majority rules, they’ve still been banished just for being themselves. It’d be equally as unfair if 51% of the state voted to make Christianity illegal (it’s unconstitutional but play along here). We shouldn’t legislate taste on ideologies.

I would want a law passed in the U.S. to be applicable to the entire country. I’m talking about most of the “big” issues, not about stuff like tax appropriations or highway maintenance stuff.

You better get used to it. No presidential candidate in their right mind would run for office without at least claiming to be Christian. You’d never get elected if you didn’t. Perhaps in your lifetime you’ll see a woman or a black, but non-Christian – forget it.

Remember, this country was founded by Christians, and their ancestors, and their ancestors….

With regard to the gay marriage question you raised, I personally don’t have a problem with it, and you know I’m a Christian and conservative. However, to suggest that they’ve been banished from a state is off-base. It’s called majority rules. This is a democracy, meaning that roughly 49% of the people are going to be pissed off about something all the time. Do states not have a right to enact laws based on a majority vote? Of course they do. That’s the separation of federal and state governments working as it should. You wouldn’t want a law passed in Tennessee to be enforced in Michigan, would you?

I’ve been a young man, I understand your passion. Keep blogging and you never know what may transpire.