Of course not — your arguments against it sound silly even to you. "It creeps me out" or "Jesus said it was naughty" doesn't really cut it when you want to oppress 20 million people, does it?]

No. I have debated this issue in Slate, and will probably do it again. The reason I don't want to get into it right now is because it is besides the point. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least a half-dozen laws I would like to see changed. We can debate those, but it is a completely separate topic from the question of what the appropriate limits of judical authority properly are.

[Well, unlike conservatives, progressives are forward thinking instead of backward thinking. Have you ever had that annoying friend that just wouldn't leave the bar even though it was time to stop drinking? Well, conservatives are that guy and progressives sometimes have to hit them over the head with a bottle and drag their ass home. You can't help yourselves, and we understand that.]

Once again proving my point that liberals are not willing to attempt legislative change by persuading the american people that their positions are right. Your side feels completely justified in using brute strength to force your will on a resisting majority. You don't believe that americans are free people with the right to determine the shape of our civil society democratically.

[Neither do you. I've always been down with completely removing marriage benefits from federal laws completely and replacing them with completely open civil unions. You down with that? Cause if so we should write a letter to President Obama in January.]

Actually, what I support is the states having freedom to define marriage as they see fit through their respective legislatures without any federal interference whatsoever.