Seriously, liberal argumentation generally consists of sloganeering, half-truths, utopian fantasies, and ad hominem attacks. Pretty much every argument that I’ve ever heard advanced to buttress “gay marriage” falls neatly into one or more of these categories.

Today, USA Today came out with an editorial piece favoring the decision by the ultra-leftist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn California’s Prop 8. By the way, Stephen Reinhardt, who wrote this opinion, and the concurring judge (it was a 2-1 decision of a subcommittee of the court, not the entire court’s decision, by the way) were appointed by Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. One needs no further reason never to vote Democrat than the mockery of the Constitution that generally tends to take place at the hands of the activist jurists that are almost always the choice of liberal Democrats. But I digress…

I will be sending an editorial response to USA Today in a few moments—who knows if they’ll actually print it—but I reproduce it here in its entirety, for your consideration:

Questions for supporters of gay marriage:

Finally, should gay marriage become the law of the land, will you support the rights of my wife and me, married 30 years, to ask the state to no longer recognize our marriage, given our heartfelt religious conviction that gay marriage does indeed cheapen marriage?

I would really, really relish a respectful conversation with any supporter of “gay marriage” who is willing to honestly tackle these questions.

Here’s betting it’ll never happen…

The popular perception among some is that evangelicals and conservatives are on some kind of witchhunt against what they perceive to be the forces of darkness, that it is we who are leading some charge to rid the culture of infidels. Goldberg rightly insists that what we have known all along is the truth, the exact opposite of liberal perceptions: it is the militant secular left which is on the attack, and it will give no quarter in its war to demand its version of the “truth” prevail. A good read well worth your time.

Rick Reilly is now, after what seems like a conversion of sorts, also a Tebow-lover. Read what he has to say.

How’s that for a needlessly wordy sentence? But I digress…

“Gay marriage” appears to be on the horizon in our lifetimes, as it is legal in several states already. The question will be, for those who call themselves followers of Jesus, how shall we respond to this earth-shaking paradigm shift? I’m not going to offer all of my thoughts in this post; rather, I’d like to suggest a starting point for our thinking, one which we should adopt now. I raise a question:

Under whose purview, for the Christ-follower, does marriage fall?

Asked another way, who determines who is actually married, and who is not? Is it God, or is it the state? The answer to this question is clear—and critical. But first, just a little (rather obvious) history…

For most of my lifetime, and certainly for several generations preceding mine (from the time states began to require licenses for marriage), there was no conflict: the state defined marriage as we, as Christians, would (laws against miscegenation excepted, of course, though these, while discriminating unfairly against mixed-race couples, did not touch the “basic formula” of one man/one woman). It was not the least bit controversial, back in 1982 when my wife and I applied for a marriage license, to do so; no one seriously contemplated any different definition. As recently as 10-12 years ago, the whole notion that the state would recognize same-sex couples as “married” was still rather preposterous. No one, in other words, could be blamed for applying for a marriage license.

Now, though, some states have determined to alter the very definition of marriage—and thus the question, who makes the call? The Christian must answer “God does”—and then we ought to act upon it. I would suggest that “acting upon it” might involve several different responses (and I will enumerate these at some point in the not-too-distant future), but first and foremost, we must adopt this baseline conviction: when God and state come into conflict, we must obey God rather than men. Marriage is ultimately the purview of God, and if the state attempts to usurp this role, we must politely, but firmly and resolutely, decline to play along.

The steps that lead to any church are a part of God and should be tried a little more often.

Huh?