Still, if localities want gay marriage, you’re okay with that? Then that part I can agree with. And probably within my lifetime, most localities will support that ideal.

Yes, I’m OK with that (as well as localities having control over marriage in general, divorce, end-of-life, appropriate appearance and conduct in public and so on) … but in general I disagree on the “most localities” trend that you suggest.

You want an anarchic federal presence and leave every choice to localities?

Your “open cell door” analogy sounds very much like Jim Crow America. “You blacks are free – free to leave and stay the heck away from here.” That is not freedom.

I’m VERY much a local choice kind of guy with the exception of rules that are oppressive or violate our constitution. So I DO think the feds have a role – a minimal but vital role in protecting Constitutional rights – in local autonomy.

Still, if localities want gay marriage, you’re okay with that? Then that part I can agree with. And probably within my lifetime, most localities will support that ideal.

The “freedoms” (free time and amount of constraints on ones actions) that a monastic enjoys is less than that of a typical slave. However the difference is that the slave was not free to leave where a monk, ultimately, is. The point is, it would be OK for on community to “have slaves” if those who were servants were free to leave.

Or, looking at it another way: We don’t leave it up to local communities whether or not it is okay to have slavery in a local city. The larger State, in that case, would want to make sure that the individual’s rights are not suppressed. So, that community that wishes to have slaves doesn’t get what it wants.

But as long as a local community (my church, for instance) wishes to be community to those who marry within our walls – both gay and straight – what difference does it make to the larger community. So, if by “local community” you mean down so far as individual churches, synagogues, mosques and community organizations AND as long as no one’s rights are being suppressed, I agree: Leave it up to the local community.

What we are saying, though, is where it’s none of my business – where it’s causing no harm, no death, no oppression – you are free to embrace your way and I’ll embrace my way.

Having a “live and let live” attitude is not the same as saying that ” all ideas are equally valid” – which was your contention. Clearly, we DON’T think your idea is valid, in the gay marriage example. “Your idea” being that you can tell my gay friends that they can’t marry. BUT, if you don’t believe in gay marriage, you are free not to take part in gay marriage. “Your idea” – if it’s merely that YOU want to marry heterosexually – we’re okay with that.

And that, it seems to me, is the difference between the tolerance of the Left – which still is opinionated and which clearly believes in Right and Wrong – and the intolerance of the Right.

* …your God is the only way to heaven?
* …your culture is better than X?

and other such things. The secular Left has been constantly trying to “equalize” everything. Heck, back in the 70’s, even Time magazine had to let people know that there were actual differences between men and women! That misunderstanding did not come from the Right.

Even now, the same-sex marriage issue is all about being equally valid. Are you seriously not seeing that?

I agree that it is nonsense. I just don’t know anyone that thinks that. I hear this charge often placed on the Left – and I’m sure there are some folk out there like that – but I don’t know them and I’ve never read any serious progressive thinker to suggest this. Have you? Can you provide a source?

Indeed, what is and isn’t PC is defined by the Left; it is a moniker created by them at the universities they control. They are the ones more easily offended and the ones more outraged over minutiae, or over who might potentially be offended. The Right cocked an eye, but was tolerant. The Left is in hysterics.

I saw the Rick Warren interview, done by Anne Curry. I loved his line about what tolerance used to mean, and what it means these days. I haven’t found a transcript, but this blogger has it quoted:

Tolerance used to mean, ‘I treat you with respect even though we disagree.’ Some people want tolerance to mean now that all ideas are equally valid. That’s nonsense. There are some things that are right and there are some things that are wrong.

You and I have our differences with Warren (and likely, different differences), but I think this says in a nutshell what has happened to the Left in this country. They have redefined “tolerance”, and become a self-parody of it.

Having a large outcry about a preacher saying a prayer I would sorta expect if Obama were to invite Reverend Wright (and believe me, there’d be a HUGE outcry if that happened – weeping and gnashing of teeth – much larger than this one) to do this. But this is too much fuss over too little.

I really don’t like Warren or his theology-lite or his opinions about killing world leaders, invading other nations, gay marriage and other points, but the Left should make a comment and then let this one go.

Leave the whining over un-PC preachers to the Right.