[Aetius]

This guy, Mark Mead, is living in a fantasy land. First of all, Bush I's numbers went up after the so called 'divisive' 1992 convention. Secondly, the major reasons BushI lost in 92 was the perception that the economy was still in recession, and the siphoning of votes by Ross Perot. Remember, Clinton only got 43% that year.

The GOP did not run a 'culture war' campaign in 92. I wish they had, and I hope they do in 04. Why not point out how the Democrats and their judicial allies are forcing unpopular policies on an unwilling public?

This guy Mead is typical of those who advise the GOP to pursue loser strategies in the hopes of furthering his narrow, far-left, radical agenda.

I just hope the GOP doesn't cave on this like they have on racial preferences and immigration, two other issues where the majority supports the conservative position, yet the GOP refuses to give voice to.

Oh yeah, it is inconsistent to oppose gay marriage but support the legal recognition of civil unions, or whatever euphemism you want to use. Sure the word 'marriage' has symbolic value, but it is the institution and concept of marriage that deserves protection. If you grant the same legal rights, privileges, responsibilities, and obligations of marriage to unmarried groups then you have gay marriage; you're just not using the word 'marriage.'

[Unam Sanctam]

If "you don't explain it properly and people think that their Baptist church or their synagogue is going to be forced to recognize a relationship they don't want, then we lose badly. It's really going to be up to us how we define it," Mead said. "If we do a poor job, we lose in the arena of public opinion."

Believe me, the homosexual activists are working hard and successfully in infiltrating all major religious groups and forcing them to change doctrines to conform to the gay agenda. This is a broad cultural campaign to impose same sex marriage in both civil and religious spheres. Just look at the Episcopal Church's recent actions.

That said, I think there is a libertarian argument against same sex marriage. Anybody is free in this country to shack up with whomever they please. The lack of state recognition of same sex marriage in no way impedes freedom of action. The whole point of it is to give state imprimatur to homosexual activity. Given that there are differing views on the morality of homosexual activity, the state should remain neutral on the subject, not give the state's blessing to it. Heterosexual marriage is different, since it is in the public interest for children to be brought up in stable families with a father and a mother.

[Lunatic Fringe]

This is a state issue, not a federal issue. We as conservatives encourage State's Rights. So if Massachusettes wants to make gay marriage legal, let them. Watch the migration to other states, and chuckle as legislators scramble to reverse the decision.

[onedoug]

Somebody's got to stand for civilization, regardless the cost.

[longtermmemmory]

Log cabin republicans gigle when conservatives say "log".

The phrse "log cabin" is a sexual inside joke not a reference to licoln. Sickos.

[sheik yerbouty]

He's been poking around those Lincoln Logs for too long..