Finally, a better author for Wonkette, while She Who Will Not Be Spoken Of is off to blog the DNC.

Andrew Hagen has finally discussed gay marriage without treating it like the cause for the end of the world:

I have attempted to rephrase the argument to uphold the family structure in entirely positive terms. I have tried to avoid using terms like “stopping gay marriage” and “protecting kids” here. Those are negative terms. While I have used them before, I think to reach the widest possible audience, and to be true to our ideals, we should cease from futher use of negative terms. Our argument should be made entirely in positive terms.

I was partially inspired by the web log Insignificant Thoughts because there my fellow web logger did such an excellent job of pointing out how gay marriage would not harm marriage. (‡‡) That is very true, and I did not realize it before. Gay marriage would not harm marriage. The only way marriage will be harmed is if those who care about the family structure abandon it. That decision is made on multiple levels, from politics and public affairs to the personal level. Ultimately, however, it is a single decision for each person to make.

— Andrew Hagen: On the need to reframe discussion of the matrimonial institution.

I respond in the comments, where I insist that Congress’ moves to lame-duck the Supreme Court with a seemingly innocuous, and Constitutional, shield against judicial review can leave the door to legislative abuse wide open.

Reverend Chapin, Steven den Beste, and Vincent M. Ferrari say for me most of what I want to say about same-sex marriage.

Certainly, a few things have changed about my stance on it. I am still a proponent of Same Sex Marriage. However, I can no longer argue it on an equal protection standpoint. I’m with the three sources I cited. First, if one is to err, one is to err on the side of liberty. Second, on pragmatic grounds. The institutional anarchy involved in letting the states decide how to handle SSM can rise to insane levels.

Finally, Congress itself is trying to undermine the existing checks and balances that we have just so that hoemoes will not marry where they choose to marry? Replace SSM with any social or economic issue and one could see the dangerous precedent that Congress is trying to enact with the Marriage Protection Act. Many, many social conservatives consider Congressional power to be the ultimate decision in matters of law, and yet, Executive Orders are matters of law too. Judicial Opinions are matters of law too. And Congress writes laws, and they can even overturn Executive vetoes. The checks and balances that some social conservatives hide behind are not as clear-cut-and-dried as they would want them to be, and any matter of law decided in any branch will always go under review. Now, Congress wants to remove the ability of federal courts to review federally enacted laws? Remarkable.

If there is one reason for my further proponence for SSM, it’s to cut through all the chaos so that we can focus on the real enemy for the coming decades, Jihadist Islam and its terrorist ways.