This is a fairly easy subject to deal with--as long as I'm in my own head.
  Since I am not a legal, Constitutional, or psychological expert I can't claim any expertise, per se, on the subjects' legalities, constitutionality, or psychology.
  I have, however, given the subject a great deal of thought.
           I listen to many, many Conservative talk shows.
  I enjoy them both for their informational and entertainment values.
  I have also devoured endless books, novels, articles--anything I could find on Conservative philosophy.
  As I stated in my article "How I Became a Gay Conservative".
  I became a Conservative over a fairly long period of time after 9/11.
  Even though I never identified myself as a Liberal prior to forming my Conservative political identity--I realized I had very Liberal thoughts and beliefs throughout my twenties.
  It wasn't until I started paying attention to politics and analyzed the way Liberals think versus the way Conservatives think that I realized I continually disagreed with Liberals.
  It wasn't just on a few issues.
  It was pretty much all of them.
  I once read a quote by Will Rogers:  "Broad-minded is just another way of saying a fellow is too lazy to form an opinion".
  Considering what we experienced as a country on 9/11--I figured it was time I form an opinion!  The problems is--modern Liberals are not the Classical Liberals our Founders were.
  Modern Liberals are Socialists.
  People who espouse big government never went away with our founding--they just transformed themselves into something else and tried to convince Classical Liberals (our Founders' philosophy) they were the same as us.
  They are not.
  A bait and switch was performed and it's time for that lie to be squelched for the piece of historical dung that it is.
  Modern Conservatives are what Classical Liberals used to be.
  Modern Liberals are what they have been in other societies that have failed throughout the ages--Socialists, Marxists, and Communist sympathizers.
  That said, those that push "Theocratic" agendas are incorrect as well--and some of them call themselves Conservatives.
  It can be very difficult to sort through, but, once you get it, you'll have it.
  Maybe that will be by next article.
    You must understand, I'm not particularly religious although I am "spiritual".
 I do believe in a "higher power".
I'm not much into organized religion even though I was raised Evangelical Lutheran.
  I even studied Buddhism as well as some other faiths.
  So, my intense commitment to Conservative values really does not stem from a "Christian Right" sort of mentality.
  I discovered there are many types of Conservatives and, for whatever reason, I think most people have this misguided belief that in order to be a Conservative you need to be intensely religious or spiritual.
  In reality, all you need to be a Conservative is an understanding of the limitations placed on our government by the Constitution.
   I do, however, acknowledge that the founders of this country based their philosophy on Judeo-Christian roots.
  I think for many gay men and women that term "Judeo-Christian" instantly imparts a knee-jerk reaction.
  One that is less than kind.
  This is mostly, due in part, to some of the nasty treatment we have received over the decades--not just by the Christian Right, but, by other faiths as well.
  I think that is unfortunate.
  I also think the knee-jerk reaction needs to be jettisoned.
  I also do not believe we are a "theocracy"--government ruled by a State religion.
  We are a Republic to be more precise.
  I highly recommend reading "The 5000 Year Leap" by W.
Cleon Skousen.
  It's an excellent book on the founding of our country in very easy to understand terms.
  There is an excellent article in "Christianity Today" called "The Faith of Our Founders".
  It most easily describes my own vision of what our Founders believed in.
  Since we are not a theocracy, I do not believe that the Christian Right necessarily has any more of a say as to whether or not we, as a country, acknowledge or do not acknowledge, gay marriage.
  Since we are a Republic, I believe that "We the People" get to decide that through our STATE  legislatures.
  That would also make me a Federalist (a proponent of individual States' Rights).
  I respect some people's belief that their faith doesn't condone homosexuality.
  That is their right to believe that.
  Whether gay marriage is recognized through our legislature or not--does not change ones personal beliefs.
  I believe God looks at your actions when judging you--not the actions of our country.
  Similarly, when I "pass on" I will deal with that higher power and what comes next on my own as well.
  Since I do not believe sexual orientation is a "choice" I have faith that however judgment happens in the "hereafter", and let's face it, no one knows for sure, my judgment will be based on my actions throughout my life and not necessarily on whom I loved but how I loved.
  If "We the People" don not want something it should not be forced on us by the government.
  I don't mean to speak of "judgment" above either--because, as I said earlier, I've studied many faiths.
  For all I know, reincarnation is the "after-reality".
  Since this is a free country--we are also allowed to find that out for ourselves in whatever way we choose.
      I know many gay men and women who celebrate every time some activist judge rolls out a pro-gay marriage stance.
  I'm extremely pragmatic about that type of occurrence.
  Since I have gained a respect for how our government is supposed to work I don't necessarily celebrate along with them.
  Judges are not supposed to make laws--they are supposed to interpret laws that are made through the legislature.
  Laws that are made through the legislature come about through votes that come from the people and their representatives.
  If the people in a particular state have not voted to recognize gay marriage and the judges override the will of those people--those judges have perpetrated a small tyranny over those residents.
  Our government was devised precisely to prevent tyranny from occurring.
  Some gay men and women will say, "But, we are living under a tyranny because we can't get married!".
  That may be true.
  But, just because it's true doesn't give a small group of judges, a minority, the right to override the will of the majority for the sole purpose of pushing a particular "agenda".
  I do not believe it's necessary to subvert our system of government in order to gain recognition of our relationships.
  Let me tell you--every time those judges take it upon themselves to rule by fiat--it makes it that much easier for them to do it with other issues that you as gay men and women may not agree with.
  Once you start down that slippery slope--it becomes very difficult to turn back the clock.
  I much prefer trying to change the mind of straight society by being a responsible citizen rather than by "forcing" a social issue that society may or may not be ready to recognize.
  Doing that also invites the possibility of "backlash".
    Whenever these activist judges do things like this it's possible that it would lead to "emergency" legislation that would forever block progress in another state.
What about the Federal "Defense of Marriage" act?  Here again, I'm a little more pragmatic on the issue.
  On the one hand, I personally don't believe in such an act since I see it as discriminatory.
  I don't think America should be a place of discrimination against anybody.
  That's not the American Way.
  We are one of the most tolerant societies on the face of the planet--if not thee most tolerant.
  We may not all agree on everything, but, we also should not impede the "pursuit of happiness" of others.
  On the other hand, I understand that some Conservatives see the relationship between a man and a woman as "sanctified" for the purpose of raising children.
  Ann Coulter has said, "Manifestly, Republican policies are more pro-gay than Democrat policies and we don't make a sport of outing political opponents who happen to be gay.
We just don't like gay marriage.
The purpose of marriage is not to sanctify the intense feelings people have for each other.
The purpose is to harness men's predatory biological impulses into a paired heterosexual relationship directed toward raising children.
Mankind has never concocted a better scheme for civilizing men than marriage".
  No matter what you think of that statement--she has a point.
  If you notice, that statement imparts a sociological connotation.
  Being a gay man who has had relationships with men I can attest to the fact that that "biological impulse" isn't very "civilized" at times.
  Go ahead, tell me I'm lying about that --I dare you!  Let's face it--gay men are not known to be the most "nesting" of creatures.
  That's not a judgment--it's just a fact.
  That  statement also doesn't make Ann homophobic--it makes her sociologically responsible.
  That's not to say that I don't think gay men and woman can't provide wonderful families for adopted children--because I do.
  Too many gay men and women, in my opinion, get their backs up when they start hearing a Conservative say they don't like gay marriage.
  The ears and mind close instantly.
  They confuse a defense of sociological responsibility with a hatred of gay men and woman.
  In some instances, that hatred might be true, but, you always have some people in every group who are "bad eggs".
  It doesn't mean they are all like that or that discrimination is the intent.
  I hear Ann as a guest frequently on Al Rantel's radio show out of 790 KABC and Al is also gay man who is a Reagan Republican.
  It seems they have quite the friendship between them.
  I won't presume to speak for Al's beliefs on gay marriage because I don't think I've ever heard him talk about it--so, I won't.
  But, that's how many gay Conservatives are--they don't identify themselves as gay first.
   They identify themselves as individuals first and do not drop the gay bomb at every opportunity.
Having made the above pragmatic statement regarding the "Defense of Marriage Act", I personally, choose the Libertarian view which is as follows:   1.
3    Personal Relationships Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.
Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
That comes straight out of the Libertarian Party Platform.
  I don't think the Federal Government should be involved in marriage at all.
  It's not involved in straight marriage, so, why should it be involved in gay marriage?  Straight people don't go to the Federal Government to get their license for marriage; they go to their state government.
  I do not want the Federal government involved in another aspect of our lives--period.
  We already have allowed politicians who have made our lives miserable by making too many things "electable issues" that should not even be federal issues.
  Abortion, in my view, is another one of those issues.
  Get the hell out of our lives.
  That was made a political issue by various groups of people with political agendas.
  It is a personal, medical decision to be made between a woman and her doctor.
  No one else needs to be involved in that decision.
  When the Federal Government attempts to guide peoples' consciences that is also tyrannical.
  Get rid of Roe v.
Wade and give the decision back to the patient and the doctor.
  I personally am against abortion.
  From a logical standpoint, I believe that since we can't scientifically settle the argument in terms of when a life begins, we, as civilized human beings should always err on the side of caution and not abort unless there are extenuating circumstance such as the endangering of the life of the mother, rape, or incest.
  I don't think it should be used as a way to get out of the consequences of irresponsible sexual practices.
  Let that debate be had in a non-governmental forum.
  No government.
  As a population living in the most free society ever devised by a brilliant group of men--we are sometimes led by our noses down these paths of argument that don't even need to be an argument.
  It's ludicrous, ridiculous, and wholly irresponsible on the part of our leaders.
  Think how many arguments between religious groups and secular groups, tax dollars spent, frustration, and angst could be saved if we just followed our Founders' principles.
  If we teach ourselves to look at things from the perspective of individual freedoms--as it was intended--then all of this crap would dissolve and blow away like dust on the wind and we would cease to be a divided nation.
  I'm not saying there is not a place for debating these issues, however, I don't believe that place needs to be our Senate or House of Representatives.
  Allow these arguments to take place in private organizations, religious organizations and scientific communities that are not linked to the government in any way.
  Don't allow our leaders to brainwash you into believing the lies they generate to keep them in office regarding issues that don't even need to be issues.
  That's what taking back our power as "We the People" should be.