In response to:

Redefining Marriage Sign of a Lost Society

Troglodite Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 9:22 PM
You did not address the real point of my own opposition to homosexual marriage, as expressed by the sentence with the capitalized WILL's. While you may disagree with the violation of freedom of speech or religion that WILL happen, you are perceptive enough and honest enough to know that I am not, unfortunately, mistaken. Re the last point: in the West, for the last twenty centuries (and probably more) marriage has been BOTH a civil and religious affair. I see no neat (or even sloppy, but still feasible) way no separate the two.

One significant development in the recent election was votes in four states approving same sex marriage initiatives. Until now, all previous state referenda to approve same sex marriage – 32 of them - failed.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page – a place where conservatives usually turn for intellectual capital – saw this as cause for celebration.

According to the Journal, marriage definition should come from voters, not from court orders. Americans, they argue, have “shown themselves more than capable of changing their views on gay marriage the democratic way.”

In other words, our definition of marriage should follow process, not...