Legalizing SSM wouldn't force clergy to perform the ceremonies any more than you can currently force a Jewish rabbi to marry a Catholic couple or vice versa. The only people who would be obligated to perform SSM ceremonies would be in a "Justice of the Peace" civil setting.
Guess I should have read this for the lulz first. Keep pretending that it's just about what's being fought over today.
It's funny because I was thinking about differences between liberal and conservative political methodology, and something I've sorta known all along but hadn't really verbalized occurred to me. Liberals are directionally oriented, while conservatives are positionally oriented. What I mean by this is that conservatives tend to pick a position where they think some issue should be based on their own principles and ideals. Liberals tend to pick a direction
on an issue based on their own principles and ideals. So, for example, a liberal might be for more social spending and less military spending, while a conservative will instead pick an amount that he thinks we should spend on social stuff and military stuff.
This often leads to massive misunderstanding between the two groups. A conservative might be more than willing to cut some unnecessary or wasteful military spending (because he believes we should spend "enough" money, but not more), which the liberal interprets as agreement but then becomes upset when he refuses to cut spending even more. Similarly, a conservative might be fine with a certain amount of social spending, which again confuses the liberal when he wants to spend more but is opposed. But that, while sometimes amusing, isn't so much of a problem.
The real problem is that liberals don't have an end point. But it is an inherent problem when you argue "for" something or "against" something. You don't stop being for that thing once you've removed the things hindering it, but will continue to be for it while arguing for additional benefits. Conservatives tend to place the point we should be at the point at which a group is neither unduly hurt or helped. Obviously, where they perceive that to be can change over time, but the changes are always based on the "position" they think that point should be. But liberals will keep pushing on past that point in whatever direction they've picked. So if you are for women, you'll push past eliminating discrimination in the workplace and right on to requiring other people to pay for their birth control. If you are against smoking, you'll go right past people smoking in the workplace, then on to smoking in planes, to smoking in restaurants, to smoking in bars, to smoking in parks, and even in people's own homes. The examples of this kind of thing are numerous.
What's ironic though, is that many liberals don't seem to realize this. They insist that they just want to achieve the current thing. But once that thing is achieved, they will not stop there, but will move on to the next thing. Liberals actively pursue a slippery slope, but are often the first to deny it, and denounce as absurd any conservative who dares to point it out.
Dunno. Just something I've been thinking about lately, and this particular bit reminded me of it. Edited, Dec 19th 2012 4:40pm by gbaji