At some point, maybe in the far distant future, but eventually, people will realize that the preferences of one adult is not actually a threat to another adult. So why is there a push for a Constitutional Amendment claiming that the government has a responsibility to regulate such preferences? If you don't like gays, then fine. I don't have to like The Raiders, and I manage to live a quite fulfilling life nonetheless. However, it always irks me when someone tries to snuff out a different point of view for the simple reason that they are unable to defend their own. This usually comes up in terms of religion, where abstract notions such as faith are put up against (usually) those armed with tangible and measurable ideas. I've always liked what Gregg Easterbrook said about those who bemoaned the loss of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse in one TMQ article, that those who need a symbol in order to believe, well, don't really believe. The true test of the validity of an idea is the ability for that idea to thrive (and, as the supporters hope, prevail) in the face of its opposers.

I feel as though the people who are threatened by the idea of gay marriage are actually posting up a front for the fears of how fragile their own marriages are. "If two men can get married of their own accord, then what is to stop my spouse from running off and entertaining her own deviant pleasures?" If you order steak and the guy sitting next to you orders chicken, does it threaten the meal you're about to have with your steak?

Episodes like this force me to continue support of the Libertarian party for the simple fact that at a certain point, the government shouldn't be worried about things like this.