I think I would prefer "Equality under the law shall not be abridged on account of gender or sex"

Josh, I'm not going to debate the merits of your short history of marriage, because right or wrong, it is history, or sociology, or anthropology, the way it has been.

But when you say the argument is improperly framed I am going to take issue. The debate is status quo vs. change. And I think it is clear you stand for the status quo. Fine.

The question is framed exactly right. Will government treat it's citizens equally with respect to marriage? The notion of equality, thank god, evolves. It does not take a lot of historical knowledge to recognize that fact.

Governmental privileges given to married people number in the hundreds, as Freddie said. I have seen figures that get into the thousand range. No matter the number it is without question that government is picking winners and losers here. And so the question, is this equality before the law? I'm saying no.

Josh, you write, "But how exactly one 'advances' a cultural argument is escaping me." Well that is what has been happening for the last, at least, 50 years. Since Stone Wall but well before that. See Harry Hay and The Mattachine Society founded in the 1950's. Actual laws protecting gays are few. Many of the ones passed have been repealed, mostly by popular votes. So to repeat myself, cultural change seems the best way to go, but not the only way to go. I agree, obviously, the fight continues, perhaps for decades. I also agree we are on the same side.

Kip, Well, as a matter of fact intuitions do have rights. For starters, many cooperation's are given rights in state and federal courts. The Supreme Court recognized the right of the Boy Scouts to determine members. Many other examples could be given. That is well established law. So perhaps a do-over is called for on your part. State your views but don't mistate facts.

Josh, not sure who you are addressing here but let me state briefly, again, my point of view. One, it is not an either or case, pro gay marriage folk can advance their case on both fronts, legal and cultural. Two, no one here has called the oppositions arguments rational, although I'm pretty sure that they are convinced of their rightness and rationality. Three, as I wrote you this morning, I see cultural avenue as a more solid footing for any advancements in rights. (Do you think that any one in there right mind, would advocate denying women the right to vote today, after seventy years acceptance?) Four, I thought you were speaking in favor of the cultural path. Go figure.

E.D. You make the point nicely. As I said in my post to Josh this morning: if forced to choose between a legal solution and a cultural solution I would choose the cultural. I will add a small point. It seems incontrovertible that cultural change takes place at a relatively fast pace today. To go to your use of history, we are no longer Medieval peasants living our lives within a 30 mile radius of our birth place, and exposed to a single, church, point of view. As you say, nothing stays the same, and I am hoping as things change acceptance of gays continues to grow.

Dave Ghrol is a god, therefore, this vedio is ineffably spirtual.

Speaking about incoherent movies, I would like to nominate 88 Minutes. That was so bad. Okay, I'm threaded by a really bad unknown someone. What do I do? Well what any one worth his salt, Hollywood hack writer, would do. Concoct a plot that involves putting everyone I know in danger. 88 Minutes makes Eagle Eye look like a paean to clear thinking.

E.D. Thanks for the clarification, but you ask me to "think socially conservative hippies." Far out, man! But it's going to take a big fucking doobie to help get my head around that concept. Peace Out Dude!

aboulian, I'm guessing that at one time folks did talk like Hamlet, at least some folks did. Few talk like a Valley Girl today but a movie depicting that time and place had better get the lingo correct. Right? So if the lingo was, say Ebonics, a fair criticism would be that it is not internally constant. (However, a Valley Girl speaking Ebonics might be pretty funny.) But the point was that an internal constancy is desirable. If I see an inconsistency I have a big problem. After all we are talking about a low brow art form, Hollywood blockbusters.

Your comment on internal consistency in movies is so to the point. I recently recommended Tropic Thunder to a buddy. I said it was very funny, which to me it is, but even though it could be called stupid, I did not see any inconsistency within it's story. And besides Tom Cruse is a treasury, the last bit with him dancing by himself is something I wont soon forget.

I read Rod Dreher occasionally, so I'm really not sure what "crunchy conservatism" means. But I'm guessing it referrers to a sort of situational definition of conservatism. Your discussion of tradition vs. modernity seem to fit that description, that is, what works for me in this time, this place, this situation. I doubt you are advocating all families ditch there TV sets, but ditching the TV and keeping the computer seem a small step either forward or backword. It seems to be running in place, but that is just my thinking. It works for you, and more to the point, reading to your daughter is an unquestionable good. Keep it up.

If I am wrong about the definition of "crunchy" none of the above is relevant to your post. If, on the other hand, I'm close on the definition, aren't you and Rod just arguing for a practical, situational, resolution of actions? And that sounds pretty liberal to me, liberal in the sense of maximizing freedoms, choices.

The League is great. Thanks for all the hard work you guys are doing.