Honestly, Ryan...

I thought the questions were rhetorical... I really did. I'm not trying to pick fights here, or to intentionally piss you (or anyone else) off by being flippant or sarcastic. I'll do what you said, though, and answer the questions the best I can.

I am curious. Should each state decide its' own abortion laws? Would you be a proponent of that?

Your focus on abortion is unfair and isn't applicable. Abortion is, indeed, a moral issue for me. However, it is also (in my opinion) a situation where the "rights" of the child to be aborted are ignored and thus violated. There is another "party" who is harmed, in other words, where I do not feel that anyone is affected by allowing gays the same "status" opportunities as heterosexuals.

Still, to answer your question: Yes, I would be in favor of that course of action. I understand that it wouldn't end abortion, but there is a far better chance of limiting it (and thus reducing the number of abortions performed) because I feel sure there are numerous states that would vote to ban the procedures altogether. If a traditionally conservative state such as Kansas or Texas banned abortions, then the pro-life movement would have an example to point to and say "See? It doesn't have to be all or nothing anymore."

How about an abortion amendment? Now careful - you'll be demanding your government "regulate morality" with an Amendment to prohibit abortion. Can you do such a thing?

See how I thought these were rhetorical? There is just a hint of irony and sarcasm here, don't you think? Yes, there are areas of morality that should be regulated and policed by the government... murder, violence, theft, ethical behavior in business and trade, etc. These DO fall under the purvue of the government because they are actions that effect other people not directly involved in the actions themselves. I feel that abortion ignores the fact that the child in the womb is a human being with all the same rights and dignities that you or I have outside of the womb... in short, the sanctioned killing of a human life for the purpose of convenience for the mother/parents of the child.

So, to answer this question: Yes, I would gladly support such an amendment, because it would protect the rights of the child where they are not being protected now.

Now, had you really had your thinking cap on, you wouldn't have used abortion as your counter to my arguments on gay marriage... you'd have used suicide.

Suicide is illegal in the US, but it (technically) effects no one but the person in questions (by definition). The moral issues involved in suicide are completely personal and (in most cases) do not effect those around the individual, and thus should be (by my own argument) outside of the purvue of government regulation, right?

I feel it is perfectly justifiable to keep suicide on the books as "illegal" because I simply cannot imagine any person in their full mental and emotional capacity capable of killing themselves. Depression, anxiety, chemical addiction... all are factors in nearly every case and thus negate the argument that it is a decision made by a rational individual capable of understanding right and wrong. Allowing or assisting in suicide is, in my opinion, right on par with euthanasia and eugenics in its immorality and I am more than comfortable having it "regulated" by the government as illegal.

The closest you came to answering my questions was with the following:

I have a specific definition of marriage that I believe is a healthy, protective and fruitful way to organize society around. I have made my judgment on the matter. However, you can not describe that judgement as "discriminatory", unfair or unjust because you have made those exact judgments on plural marriage, underage marriage, etc. Those laws are in fact regulating "marriage", plain and simple. Those laws help to define what marriage is and is not, plain and simple. And I use plural marriage in particular because there you have consenting adults (again, not hurting anybody), perhaps simply practicing their religion.

I can completely agree that a marriage state between a man and a woman is the ideal... it is what Nature (read: God, Creator, evolution, happy accident) obviously intended. The whole study of biology tells us this, with no ambiguity whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the government automatically gets to determine that it is the ONLY option available to rational adults that choose to go against nature and aren't hurting anyone else in the process.

The most obvious analogy that comes to mind is the drinking of alcohol. Alcohol (specifically, ethyl alcohol, or grain spirits) is a mild poison that, if consumed in enough quantity, can kill a person. It does permanent damage when abused, and can effect an individual's abilities to a degree that makes them a danger to others. The government attempted to ban the production, possession and use of alcohol once already (through the very means you are advocating now), and the results speak for themselves. I am a rational, right-thinking adult and I am perfectly willing to take on the individual responsibility that comes with drinking... I know the dangers and choose to adjust my behavior accordingly or face the consequences. Much "immoral" behavior can be shown to stem from the abuse of alcohol, yet I still feel society is better off since the government decided NOT to ban booze altogether, but to leave the final decision up to the individual States and the individual citizens themselves as to how they will regulate the issue and punish those that abuse it. I also feel that statistics support my opinion.

Multiple marriages, child marriages, and any obviously abusive associations that you wish to hold up as examples of the "evil" associated with a deviant lifestyle are also regulated by the government... because they are harmful to individuals that are either not part of the decision making process involved or are incapable of making the decisions themselves. That kind of regulation protects the innocent, and thus society in general. Just like it is a crime to drive drunk: we are punishing the INDIVIDUAL who abuses the privilege, not removing the privilege altogether.

Finally, from your last post:

You claim that the government has the right to regulate but not "define" marriage...

I did not say that. I did suggest that this society (at this point in history) will be unwilling, and possibly unable, to define it by the means you have described as ideal: a Constitutional amendment. I did say that, were that unlikely situation to arise, I would support it with every fiber of my being.

More to the point, I have said all along that the reasons for denying gays the ability to gain and hold the same status as heterosexual couples seem completely rooted in "moral" reasoning that, while perfectly understandable to me as a Catholic and an individual, fail to meet the requirements of government purvue as defined by the Constitution itself. I WANT to do whatever I can to protect the traditional nuclear family lifestyle in this nation, but I fail to see where I (or the Federal Government) has the RIGHT to mandate that lifestyle as the only option available to every person in this country, especially when those same people are denied benefits or status because they choose NOT to follow that lifestyle.

Why can't we discuss how to get gay couples the same benefits and tax-status as heterosexual married couples? That, in my eyes, is the root of the trouble all around. As I said before, "separate but equal" has been determined to be un-Constitutional, so rather than re-inventing the wheel, let's discuss how to fix the wheels we have so that no one is left off the cart.

Is that so wrong?