Cheers,
AQ

Not very likely. Currently the debate is over an abstraction, a piece of paper. But if gay marriage gets established in a few "blue" states, the reality will begin to intrude. All the costly benefits society bestows on man/woman marriage because parents create the children that are our future will go to often transient relationships incapable of creating children.

One example is health insurance. Society benefits enormously because employers provide health care for their employees' families. With gay marriage, struggling small businesses, who can barely afford to cover the health care costs of a healthy spouse and children, will have to cover the AIDS-related costs of a gay "spouse" or, if the law goes as some suspect, multiple gay 'spouses.' Unable to afford that and not permitted by courts from making a distinction, these companies will simply drop such coverage. Children will suffer in ways even the Old Media will not be able to conceal.

Joyce Joyner seems to share the belief of "progressives" that they own the future, that eventually "reactionaries" will come around to their point of view. But one of the foremost progressive causes of a century ago, eugenics, did not triumph despite the labors of elite universities and the NY Times, Nation and New Republic, as well a 1927 Supreme Court decision in its favor (Buck v. Bell). By 1920, some 15 (mostly 'blue') states had legalized forced sterilization of the "unfit," a major item in the eugenic agenda. Today it is legal nowhere and its only enduring organizational legacy is Planned Parenthood. True, eugenics still exists as a progressive cause (it underlies the liberal zeal to bring abortion to the poor and racial minorities), but no liberal dares to openly advocate a cause they once consider an example of just how "enlightened" they were.

And in its heyday, the only open foes of eugenics were devout Catholics and fundamentalists. Virtually the only book critical of it, Eugenics and Other Evils, was penned by a "reactionary" Catholic, G. K. Chesterton. As this election demonstrated, today's supporters of "traditional" moral values are far better organized than the foes of eugenics ever were.

If "progressive" thought can lose a cause like eugenics so badly that the liberal-to-left spectrum now denies that they ever supported it, they can also lose on abortion and gay marriage. If you'd like to know more about eugenics, see the blog linked to my name below.

--Mike Perry, Seattle, a blue city in an otherwise red state.

"Maybe this time the voters chose what they actually want: Nationalism, pre-emptive war, order not justice, "safety" through torture, backlash against women and gays, a gulf between haves and have-nots, government largesse for their churches and a my-way-or-the-highway President."

Not my "values", thank you. But clearly the values that are dominant in this country, outside of New England and its urban enclaves. But those of us on the "liberal" or "progressive" side DO have values of our own and the important thing about values is that a value is not a value if you abandon it because a majority of your neighbors disagree with you. If you do so, it is merely a mood.

There are those in the Democratic Party who have only moods, but they are generally the so-called "pragmatists" and "centrists". Of whom Hillary Clinton is actually now the most prominent. Perhaps they will persuade the rest of us to pretend we don't have values, but I sincerely hope not. One of MY values is that I would rather lose power by telling the truth than win power by living a lie.

In 2004 the "Confederacy" has won a major battle in the American Civil War which has never really ended. A majority of the American voting public has chosen the dish they really want. They can no longer make any excuses about what they put on their plate. We will see if, in four years, they still like the flavor.

JJ - Just because some homosexuals pressured the APA to remove homesexuality from their list of psychological problems doesn't make it so. Any self-destructive lifestyle is still a mental disease whether Americans recognize it as one or not.

From reading your site, I don't think you would agree that people should have voted for Kerry just because the liberal elites supported Kerry, correct? Why then should our opinion be swayed because the homosexual lobby persuaded the APA to change their mind. This is especially true since there was no scientific or scholarly reason for the decision, just a few leaders of the APA changed it. The person who was most key in making this change, Dr. Charles Silverstein, later came out of the closet and admitted he was gay. Can anyone say conflict of interest?

Despite that, I would agree we are more tolerant of this lifestyle than we were a generation ago. However, despite media propaganda and public school indoctrination, the overwhelming majority of Americans, even in blue states, will not support the homosexual lifestyle. There is a distinct difference between tolerance and support.

Whew! And my comments started by thanking you for your work ;-) Which I still mean :-)

This is somewhat understandable, since much (if not most) of the "anti" opinions are due to religious bias. How does one argue against the Will of God (whether God actually wills it or not)? (Answer: you don't. Faith is faith.)

I think patience, acceptance, education, and, most importantly, *respect* are the correct long-term answers. Change happens, but it doesn't always happen when we want it and it doesn't happen because of legal changes. Despite Roe v. Wade there's still a huge backlash against abortion.

In most cases it seems there's little respect given from either side, though from my perspective it seems the "pros" are both loudest and nastiest.

I'm honestly not sure why gay people want to get married--seems to me the heteros have made a pretty big mess of it already :) I think there are some pretty decent compromises that could be reached in terms of legal recognition. Despite my fundamental belief of "whatever floats your boat is OK with me", I can easily understand why people might want to reserve the term "marriage" for a union between a man and a woman.

Second, I think Jon Stewart was dead-on last night. The Democrats have been ignoring the "culture war" for 20+ years, and they paid for it on Tuesday. They don't understand the language of religion because many of them haven't darkened the door of a church or opened a Bible ever. The Democrats have to respond: Listen to the red states, understand their language, frame your arguments to them in ways that make sense to them, and stop pretending it's a "big tent" when the religious intolerance in the Democratic party is so great that you drive the pro-life Dems out. If the Dems don't respond, I believe they really will be a fringe party in two presidential cycles, because the coming schism in the GOP will create a socially liberal, fiscally conservative faction that will usurp the Dems' position.

And third... if not Hillary, who? And don't say Zell Miller. The Dems' bullpen is looking mighty empty right now.

First we abhor
Then we endure
Then we embrace

We are already at the "endure" phase unfortunately.

But, I really have to object to your use of a terrible picture of Hillary to prove your point that she's a wacko who shouldn't be the presidential nominee. Personally, I'm excited that a woman is finally seriously being considered for the Democratic nominee and it annoys me that people use personal appearance as part of political arguments. But I wouldn't choose her as the next standard bearer. I still believe General Clark is the best choice (at this point)...or John Edwards. I think we need someone from the South or Midwest who can credibly connect values with Democratic goals.

You said: I believe majorities in a few states will come around on the gay marriage issue.

come around - like come to our senses? Now you sound like a Democrat ;-) There are many good reasons most Americans supporting keeping traditional marriage unique and special and your phrasing implies we just oppose change out of denseness or some other negative reason.

And that's the problem right now for the Democrats. THey simply cannot understand that it is THEY who are on the fringe.

I should shut up now, because I'm working on an article to just this point, for this weekend's BIT'S BIT.

But I did want to say 'right on', James.