As for the importance of the demographics, you assume (a) that those shifts in opinion will continue, and (b) that the proportion of the population that remains committed to a traditional notion of marriage will soon be insignificant. But lots of people who lean leftward when they are young start to lean more to the right as they grow older, even just getting into mid-life. And the relatively rapid shift that was happening a few years back has actually slowed considerably of late. Look at a few more polls. On Roe v. Wade, the public sentiment has become quite a bit more conservative in the past decade or so, so apparently history doesn’t only march to the left. Now, suppose that only 1/3 of the population remains committed to traditional marriage in 20 years. Is that an insignificant portion of the population to alienate?

You also are not addressing the other prong of my argument, about the cultural foundation for social order. To the extent that the culture of Hollywood, consumerism, and unaccountable individualism replaces Christianity as the primary moral culture of the country, we will have a difficult time sustaining the tough moral project of pluralistic democracy under rule of law. In principle, perhaps a non-religious culture could provide a solid foundation, but on the ground, that sort of culture has not materialized in this country. The rule of law requires either (a) extremely strong social fabric (not happening in such a pluralistic society), (b) an extremely efficient (and expensive, and probably harsh) police state, or (c) a strong sense of duty among a large portion of the population. This last is what we have to bet on if the American project is to succeed, but I don’t see it coming out of Hollywood.

I agree with you that is very odd.

Your argument seems to presume that the federal government is one thing rather than several entities that balance each other in terms of power and moral suasion. Curiously, I don’t recall seeing any high status elected officials resign or say that their offices were illegitimate. Scalia, talks the talk but does he walk the walk? When Nixon abused his power at least some of the lawyers resigned. How many retirees returned their social security checks?

Did anyone turn loose prisoners from federal prisons? How much legitimacy does a government really need to function?

But let’s say those morally opposed to this ruling wanted to start anew. What legitimacy do they have? What political imagination binds them? Take a look at the republican presidential candidates. Do they form a coherent vision of legitimacy? There’s no there, there. those morally opposed to this may have values, but do they have any political ideas that can bind them into any kind of functioning organization? In my opinion they do not. How much would they tax themselves? Would they have a draft? Would they establish Christianity as a state religion? Would they exile or persecute mormons.

I’d love to attempt to imagine the future you contemplate but it is philosophical and fanciful not empirical. The people you discuss can’t be a political force until they can agree with each other politically and this they most certainly cannot. They are impotent and bankrupt as a legitimacy creating movement.

Whatever on earth do you have in mind for them to do?

Is it the same reason people grossly overestimate the share of the us budget going to foreign countries or the distribution of income? I suspect it is because they are both ill-informed and not particularly good at math.

I am still waiting for someone to answer my question about why Americans overestimated the gay population so incredibly. Of course I have my opinion, but I would like just one person to address this, as well as speculate about what we all know is coming regarding the Church.

Now you claim that you do not approve of the gay bullying, but you previously said “JONAH got what they deserved”, then proceeded to gay bait.

I am pretty comfortable with my balls, having lived through the property vandalism, threatening phone calls, media attacks, etc. for standing with the Church, without backing down.

And I echo the call for a moderator.

And you didn’t reference the percentage of people who favor gay marriage in post #41, you were talking about the percentage of the gay population. You don’t even know what you said. So get off my balls and grow your own.

Jeff – you need to read the poll you referenced – “The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are gay or lesbian..” And your apocalyptic whining and fear-mongering is an even more tiresome tactic.

Brad – Tell that to Eich, and JONAH, and the Oregon Bakers, and to Kickstarter who was bullied into banning efforts to help them. Tell that to the people in my ward that whisper their concerns, and use euphemisms to even discuss this issue. And then you justify it. Baseless paranoia? When you have your car windows smashed in you can talk to me about baseless paranoia. How about a wager on how long before the Church’s tax exempt status is challenged for not going along with the law of the land? I didn’t think so.