Hopefully this never happens, but if it does, I'll bet our liberal friends will regret not supporting the 2nd amendment.

I believe the letter was written after or around his first divorce--a divorce he never wanted. It seems that his first wife was a bit of a "free spirit".

There is a quote I've seen attributed to Reagan that goes as such: (paraphrasing) "Perhaps I should have let someone else save the world, and saved my own home."

Quite a powerful quote.

I can't top what Trace said, Peter. Both you and Reagan never fail to impress.

One thing we can all be sure of, is that everyone involved with the story Peter so eloquently related to us, will view America in a positive light. For most of those villagers, this was probably the first contact they had with Americans.

First impressions matter, and Peter and Reagan blew it out of the park.

I need to read this.

Thank you, cdor, very much!  I've made too many mistakes to claim any wisdom, but I appreciate your thoughts none the less.

Well said. Thank you. I certainly am working on it.

Also, Peter, thank you for promoting my post!

I think you're missing the point.

The claim isn't that the pledge was the only reason the candidates won--rather the claim is that it helped. This seems to be a reasonable assertion in my opinion.

Many people don't realize the tremendous impact nonprofits can have influencing citizens and/or rallying them to action (depending on the c3 or c4 status). The pro-life voter that you mention above may not have been aware that his rep voted for ObamaCare. Isn't it quite likely that the pledge alerted him to this fact and perhaps nudged him to the voting booth?

Heather isn't trying to "pat herself on the back", she's fighting the good fight.

Edited to reflect Cylon's post above mine, which I hadn't read when writing my response.

Oddly enough, I have a tendency (or used to when I would engage in similar debates on Facebook--not recommended) lose my cool much easier online than in person.

This is unfortunately  true. I suspect that even if gays were allowed the exact same legal treatment as straights, it wouldn't be enough. Nor is tolerance enough.

Anything shy of complete and utter acceptance of the entire "equality movement" means that one is a bigot. That's why civil unions probably won't work.

I want gay couples to have life long partnerships, in stable loving relationships. I don't think that it's the ideal way to raise a family, but it's better than no family.

Is the argument for civil unions just a non-starter? Apart from the name, there isn't anything different between civil unions and marriages. Now, I'll admit that this is still a large difference, but legally all the same rights are there.

Does anyone else get the feeling that if the SSM crowd just pushed for civil unions, that this issue would be over?

I will say (as I have on Trace's other thread) I do see merit in the idea of promoting the traditional family value culture among the gay community.

Perhaps those who oppose SSM could simultaneously encourage gays to adopt the family culture--commitment, stability etc.

This issue isn't going to go away and it's not going to be resolved anytime soon. The way I see it (and this could be childishly naive) is that while we defend traditional marriage we should also evangelize the virtues of the institution, only in the form of a civil union.

And doing a darn fine job.

I think that one of the problems with using the "I have a gay friend who is a normal, productive member of society" argument, is that it doesn't really address the point that many people on the other side are making.

It's not that anyone feels that gay's aren't/can't be good people.

I know liberals who I love and who are great people, but I still think liberalism is wrong.

I'm personally conflicted with the whole gay marriage issue, but I think Trace's idea has merit. Perhaps it's not sufficient on it's own, but I feel like it would be an excellent complimentary argument for people defending traditional marriage.

When we defend traditional marriage and talk about family values, we should also try to promote and share these values with the gay community. We know that certain lifestyles are better for families and better for society, so why not try to promote that among the gay community?

At the very least, I think it would help "soften" the traditional marriage position. It's too easy for the SSM crowd to paint their opponents as hateful bigots as it stands now.

I miss Kenneth :(

Thank you!

It's always good to hear things like this. Part of me sometimes feels that because I'm not good enough I shouldn't even go.

Essentially, because I'm not 100% in line, I shouldn't attend service, confess etc., when in reality, I need to keep doing those things so I can improve.

I appreciate all the responses, everyone. I always expect high caliber conversation, but this was better than expectations!

That was very beautiful.

Sure do.

I actually attend Mass most regularly at St. Matthews--beautiful church.

Here in Arlington, VA there are lots of churches, but only a few where a conservative wouldn't have to squirm in the pews every so often. Also, there are so many bureaucratic hoops one must jump through to become a parish member. Of course, I can still go w/o being a member, and this is likely the step I will take for the moment.