[Overpaid Slacker]

jc -
As I said, the Rep's didn't invent this issue b/c polls tell them to; nor did they do it (IMHO) out of some adolescent mean-spiritedness. You've conflated two things into cause/effect for purposes of "winning" an argument. I think it's safe to say that as a rule W doesn't allow his agendas to be pushed around by polls. And he didn't do (and doesn't support) this b/c he's "mean" or "hates gays". Though that flippancy will attract moths not quite out of intellectual elementary school.

Though I'm hard pressed to think of any Republican initiative that would work to the detriment of one class of people being presented for considered debate w/o "mean-spirited" attached to it. It's "mean-spirited" to reform welfare and require people to work; it's "mean-spirited" to means test benefits; it's "mean-spirited" to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining drivers licences and medical benefits, etc.

"Mean-spirited" is intended to preclude debate by anathematizing the issue. Didn't work this time.

If you cannot accept that many people believe that gay marriage is inappropriate (for whatever reasons) and must marginalize them with epithets, then you've become what you despise. A bigot.

As someone who doesn't care about others' sexual preferences, I can see merit to the arguments against gay marriage; I'm not bigoted on this point, nor am I mean-spirited. Nor are all people who oppose gay marriage out on some political fringe.

Purry -
Every little issue that's important to some sub-section of our population cannot be seized upon by our legislators, nor can our legislators be asked to intervene on behalf of every group with a disgruntlement. This is a larger issue than most (and I didn't say, nor did I intend to imply it wasn't important -- only that I don't have a strong opinion), but your 2nd para scares me in that it seems to suggest that every group, no matter how small, and no matter what their issue, should be championed by legislators. And, by extension, championed to a liberal end.

If anyone who would support anti-gay marriage legislation you'll label an 'extreme conservative', then your last sentence will of course be tautological due to your own choice of label. However, many people who are against gay marriage are not in any "objective" sense extreme conservatives.

IMHO, it's a little hyperbolic to claim this interposes government into bedrooms and relationships. This doesn't ban homosexuality, nor punish it; but would limit treatment of marriage under the law to that definition that has been near-universally employed since before the beginning of recorded history. I certainly don't support dissolving civil unions or contractual arrangements approximating marriage. EDIT -- stranded two thoughts here that were wrong; fixed.

Personally, I'm inclined to say "hey, why not... let 'em get married", but then I listen to those who have reasons why not, and some of them are compelling. If you (not you, personally Purry, but anybody who's interested) haven't heard them out, maybe you should. I'm not going to be an anti-gay marriage champion, but there are points to be made on that side of the ledger -- and more articulately than the pro-side, which seem to amount to "it's not fair" or "it's mean spirited not to".

If you can have substantially the same rights, then it's really about getting self-righteous about the label. That's certainly not new in the US.

EDIT -- jc, I read your follow-up post after I'd written this, and re-read this realizing it sounds snarky at points. It wasn't (and isn't) personal, just about the tactic employed.

JP