FYI - This is Kurtz's (and Justin Katz's) position on gay marriage.

1) They are willing to argue as if it matters whether gay marriage
undermines marriage or not. But if it is shown that gay marriage really does not harm marriage, that is irrelevant. Gay marriage is not a civil
right, and must be denied regardless of whether or not it affects the institution.

2) They are willing to argue as if they expect and prefer to see gay marriage denied legislatively on a state by state basis and then upheld by each states judiciary. But if gay marriage can only be denied by
amending each state's or, if necessary, amending the federal constitution, that is irrelevant. Gay marriage is not a civil right, and must be denied, regardless of how that occurs.

Does this accurately represent your position ?

This is an issue in which there are 'debate-worthy' arguments on each side. But that does not change the fact that there are some arguments which are, well, just plain bad/unpersuasive on BOTH sides. (and I'm being kind in my wording)

Yes, Sullivan is has a pre-conceived agenda and engages in 'spin' to make his point. And that is *so* very different than you and your side which has no pre-conceived agenda and just sits back waiting to be persuaded by 'the facts' as all open-minded people are. Spare me.

I am against what is happening in SF but still find a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in all the screaming about this. I look forward to your condemnation of those who will refuse to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on their beliefs. I want to see how serious you are against any civil disobedience regardless of the issue involved.

From my perspective, you are turning into a simple partisan on this issue. Instead of addressing the 'issue', you now often reference the behavior (past or present) of specific people within the issue as examples of those who advocate gay-marriage or generalize the intentions/arguments of all advocates as being 'not in good faith' or 'disguise'. And of course, if a gay-marriage advocate makes a similar reference to the opposing side ... well, that's different. That's just wrong.

So much for the intellectual or ideological 'high road'. Demagoguery rules - as long as it's only applied to the 'other side'.

I'm sorry, Mark, but your comment is nonsensical. Denying something does not follow from its not being a civil right in the way that allowing it follows from the opposite. Moreover, denial of gay marriage is the status quo. From our position, no state should have to act at all, legislatively or otherwise, to prevent the advent of gay marriage within that state, whereas obviously, states (or the feds) would have to enact gay marriage somehow for it to exist.

But as a matter of fact, if I believed that gay marriage would be allowed to come into existence through the legislative process of each and every state, I'd bite the bullet and just argue against each state's doing it. I wouldn't, under those circumstances, seek a federal amendment.

But I can't say I'm thrilled to see that you presume my hypocrisy. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't support town halls' locking gays out or burning the marriage licenses so that they couldn't be granted. If somebody held a belief that precluded the execution of his or her duties (which wouldn't be my response were I a town clerk, by the way), he or she should just step back from the counter, as it were, and face the consequences.

There are two major differences, though. That would not be an action, but a refusal of action. One person's not doing something doesn't negate it in the way that one person's doing something makes it happen. I would, however, support the governor of Massachusetts, for example, were he to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the court's order, if he is allowed to do so under the Mass. constitution. But that would be an assertion of procedure, whereas the San Fran case is an assertion of policy — one that is still under debate, but in which the people of California have already voiced their preference.

As for the "behavior" and "good faith" points, I can only say that those are relevant in a debate that involves both a behavior and the rule of law. Unless I've overstated my position (which is possible) I make such statements only specifically. Moreover, I don't think I've done so as the full extent of my arguments.

In fact, I would point out, one complaint of mine is that Sullivan has acted as if right-wingers going to court is an action taken in a void, not having a corresponding response from the other side. I have no doubt, as you imply that I do, that there are those who oppose gay marriage because they oppose the existence of gays. But then, my argument is that brakes have to be applied, whereas Sullivan is arguing that there is no need for brakes, in part because there are laws against speeding. In that respect, it is relevant that there are people trying to slip their feet onto the gas pedal, and it is relevant that Sullivan doesn't seem inclined to rebuke them when they do.