My response was to your point championing the persistence of “societal norms.” Slavery and the male franchise were societal norms for hundreds of years. The point is that norms change.

Secondly, on “gay behavior being a choice”–that is irrelevant. The issue here is marriage. Marriage for anyone is a choice. The problem resolved by the NJ case is that the state–in the case at hand–discriminates on the basis of the plaintiffs’ gender. That is fundamentally anti-individual and an affront to civil liberties–two of the basic philosophical elements underpinning our democratic system.

Marriage is different from those others rights as well. The cultural and societal norms concerning marriage included women and minorities. Most minorities fail to see any connection between the civil rights struggle they endured and the current gay marriage controversy.

I’m simply explaining why there is resistance to this idea. If proponents of gay marriage fail to see it I doubt they can develope a strategy yo overcome it and attain their goals.

Again I must object to the rhetorical tactic of equating opposition to gay marriage as homophobic, racist and sexist all at the same time. Painting rational opponents of any policy with such a broad stroke reveals weakness in the proponents stance.

What societal norms could be done away with next if we base all of our decisions on “cold logic” as Mr. Hinckley said?

Yeah, you’re right. Lets get rid of women and blacks voting while we’re at it. Maybe bring back slavery, as well–it’ll sure help the unemployment figures.

What societal norms could be done away with next if we base all of our decisions on “cold logic” as Mr. Hinckley said?

I would argue this should have been decided in the political arena not in the courts who are bound by logic to make some poor decisions.

Listen, if you are really concerned with “national values,” there are many more pressing instances of the break down of “national values” than this issue.

When our Congress and President embrace torture and the erosion of basic civil liberties, for instance, we can identify much larger affronts to “national values.”

In fact, to the extent that this ruling asserts equality before the law, then we should consider this a great celebration of the principles of individualism that form the philosophical basis of our republic.

Government-sactioned torture and kidnapping and a total disregard for the rule of law by the Executive branch are the substance of constitutional crisis.

Two people getting married is utterly meaningless in the current crisis of values that we see from the radicals who currently occupy significant positions of power in the country.

After a couple of years of gay marriage in Mass and civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut, the Northeast certainly does not see this as a particularly big deal — and I think that is also becoming the national consensus. Let homoesexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, but if possible protect the “institution” of marriage.

I think that most people will greet this with a shrug, and those most opposed will be those who believe that homosexuality is immoral to begin with. Once you jump the immorality hurdle, it is far easier jump to recognizing that committed same sex couples should enjoy equal rights.

Of course, our national values are changing, and public policy will always follow those changes. So while I oppose recognition of what I consider to be immoral relationships and participate in opposition to them, I also know that the most important battle should be at the level of public morality. If that can’t be helped, legalized gay marriage is just a few votes away.

More precisely, the opponents should have minded their own business. Why anyone would be against equal protection under the law and two people committing to a lifelong monogomous relationship and is beyond the realm of rational thinking.