The Title Of Liberty

"You owe your life -- and everything else -- to the sovereign. The rights of subjects are not natural rights, but merely grants from the sovereign. There is no right even to complain about the actions of the sovereign, except insofar as the sovereign allows the subject to complain. These are the principles of unlimited, arbitrary, and absolute power, the principles of such rulers as Louis XIV."

Fundamental: a. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary b. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central c. Of great significance or entailing major change

Transformation: a. a change or alteration, esp. a radical one; b. a qualitative change; c. an event that occurs when something passes from one state or phase to another;

On July 8, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law which forbids the practice of plural marriage in US territories. This act was aimed at abolishing the practice by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (referred to by many as "Mormons"), which had settled in the Utah Territory. If the church would not interfere with him, President Lincoln told the church, he had no intentions of inforcing the act. After all, the Mormons were essentially isolated in the territory, which was largely barren and hostile when they arrived there-- aside from the Native Americans living there, no one really wanted it. Frontiersman Jim Bridger had told Brigham Young that his pioneers would never be able to tame the land. All the other pioneers of the day were headed to Oregon, or to California for the goldrush.

But by the time the Civil War had ended and the California gold rush was over, Utah had become an oasis in the desert. Subsequent settlers of Utah who were not members of the church began to contest for political power in the territory which the Mormons had settled. The Liberal Party of Utah was formed in opposition of the Mormon-dominated political platform, focusing primarily against the Church's polygamist practices. Their effect would be felt nationally in February of 1882, when George Q. Cannon, elected Representative of the U.S. Congress for the Utah Territory (and prominant Mormon leader) was denied his congressional seat due to his polygamous relations.

The Edmunds Act was passed the following month, amending the Morrill Act by revoking several key rights of these polygamists:

-The right to vote, the right to hold office, even the right to due process of law. The mere confession of a belief in the church doctrine of plural marriage, even if one did not practice it, was grounds for the removal of these rights.

-It also allowed the U.S. Government to vacate all elected offices of government in the Territory, installing an election commission which filled offices using only candidates and voters to whom the Edmunds act did not apply: the anti-Mormon minority.

-The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 allowed the U.S. government to further extend the punishments of the 1882 Edmunds Act and seize the church-- the U.S. Attorney General followed up with a suit in July 1887 which seized the church and all of its assets. The military was deployed in the enforcement of the anti-polygamy laws.

The leadership of the church was forced underground, but facing the church's destruction, Wilford Woodruff and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (which made up the church leadership) eventually issued a manifesto in 1890, advising its members "to refrain from contracting any marriages forbidden by the law of the land." A second manifesto was issued in 1904 by the church, declaring that anyone participating or officiating in plural marriages would be excommunicated from the church. The relinquishing of this doctrine by the church led to the eventual restoration of rights to the membership of the church, and paved the way for the statehood of Utah in 1896.

I suspect that most people have little interest in the history of the church, or of the history of polygamy in the U.S., (except perhaps a few purile TV producers wanting to compete with "Desperate Housewives" in terms of libido, but with a twist-- portraying their polyamorous fantasies as "polygamy," however absurdly inaccurate their portrayal.)

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I am probably more aware than the average person, of the history of the church's former practices regarding marriage, and the conflict between the church and the U.S. Government at the time. But I am not interested in the practice per se, nor in blogging about it directly.

Rather, what I have described above is a legal and historical precedence in U.S. law and history regarding the treatment of citizens and institutions by the government, when those persons or institutions differ with the government's standing regarding the institution of marriage and how it is defined.

To recap: A group of American citizens, due to their religious beliefs, recognized, practiced and administered marriages which were defined in a manner that the U.S. Government did not recognize. Subsequently, members of the faith had basic rights of citizenship revoked, the church and it's assets were seized, their duly elected local government officials stripped of office, to be replaced by officers who opposed the views of the majority of the constituency, which was not permitted to participate in their selection.

I concede that one might argue that polygamy is an extreme example, as well as well as questioning the relevence of a case from two centuries ago. However, in a country where legal precendence dictates how law is enforced, this is a precendece which should not be ignored, regardless of one's views on polygamy specifically.

Want a more recent precedence?

Bob Jones University v. United States, a 1983 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, held that the Internal Revenue Source could, without approval from the United States Congress, could revoke the tax exempt status of organizations that are contrary to "public policy," a concept that either the Supreme Court nor the IRS has clearly or fully defined. The issue in which Bob Jones University was in contention with the government was again related to the definition of marriage: The school prohibited interracial marriage and dating among its students. Bob Jones' claim that the prohibition was grounded in religious belief and therefore protected by the First Amendment was dismissed-- the loss of the tax benefits did not prevent the school from "observing their religious tenents."

Still, the point was clear: the U.S. Government could and would exercise sanctions against an organization which did not conform to its policy regarding the definition of marriage. Of course, it wasn't framed as an issue of the definition of marriage-- it was framed as a civil rights issue.

Coming from a family in which is represented Black, Hispanic, Native American, European and Asian bloodlines, it should be clear that I do not share the disposition of Bob Jones University in regards to interracial marriage, and I am not here to argue whether the policy of the University (which was abandoned in 2000) was racist or discriminatory. One might argue that since a majority of citizens found the University's policy to be bigotry, discrimination of this nature justifies the government sanctioning.

But I am interested in the precendence set-- Though less severe, this precendence is essentially in accord with the previously cited example: A religious institution, whose views on the definition of marriage ran counter to public policy, received sanctions from the U.S. Government, essentially punishing the institution for disagreeing with the definition of marriage recognized by the government.

The clever reader will have already seen where I am going with this... Today we face the issue of homosexual "marriage," which is already legally recognized in Massachusetts as fitting within the definition of marriage to that state's government. To those who oppose the redefinition of the institution of marriage by government to include same-sex couples, often the burden of proof that there is validity behind their concern is placed upon them in a question such as, "If a same-sex couple were to be legally recognized in marriage, what concern is it to you? How are you personally affected by it?"

Given the two examples of legal precendence I've cited, I'm prepared to answer that question:

The ultimate effect of legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is the destruction of one of the founding principles of America: Religious liberty.

Think I'm overstating it? Think those points of precendence won't be applied in regards to the same-sex "marriage" issue?

Think again-- it's already started.

Maggie Gallager of The Weekly Standard has written an article (well worth reading in entirety) which examines "[t]he coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty." I'll try to summarize the relevent points.

She sites the case of the Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, who announced on March 10th of this year that they were getting out of the adoption business: "We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."

Massachusetts law prohibited "orientation discrimination" over a decade ago. Then in November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered gay marriage. The majority ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently. That same year, partly in response to growing pressure for gay marriage and adoption both here and in Europe, a Vatican statement made clear that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching.

. . .

To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination--including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too . . . From there, it was only a short step to the headline "State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business," which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It's worth underscoring that Catholic Charities' problem with the state didn't hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey's assessment: "Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples."

This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.

But I've already shown that historical legal precedence proves that to be wrong. It will not likely stop at merely shutting down adoption agencies.

The article goes on to examine the anticipated impact of the introduction of same-sex "marriages" in America. Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a religious liberty law firm which defends the religious liberty of all faith groups, states, "The impact will be severe and pervasive . . . This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations . . . the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it's easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter."

The strategy of the homosexual agenda, as has already been seen, is to pattern itself after the civil rights movement and subsequent legal precedences (even usurping the title of "civil rights" for the movement.) The parallel between orientation and race is purposely drawn, for a specific end: getting the law to treat people who oppose gay marriage like bigots who opposed interracial marriage-- this would establishes a legal definition of descrimination of so-called "sexual orientation," which will be punished like racial descrimination. No, people aren't arrested for simply being racist, but the law intervenes in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination not only by government, but by private entities.

"[I]t is not only gay marriage, but also the set of ideas that leads to gay marriage--the insistence on one specific vision of gay rights--that has placed church and state on a collision course. Once sexual orientation is conceptualized as a protected status on a par with race, traditional religions that condemn homosexual conduct will face increasing legal pressures regardless of what courts and Congress do about marriage itself."

The article outlines the following future points of conflict:

- Education: Same-sex marriage will affect religious educational institutions in at least four ways: admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs. An ongoing California case is cited where a private Christian high school is defending it's decision to expell two girls in an allegedly self-professed lesbian relationship. If the school loses the case, "the government will force religious schools to tolerate both conduct and proclamations by students they believe to be sinful."

- Other church-affiliated endeavors then become questioned: religious camps, retreats, and homeless shelters... "What of a church-affiliated community center, with a gym and a Little League, that offers family programs? Must a religious-affiliated family services provider offer marriage counseling to same-sex couples designed to facilitate or preserve their relationships? . . . Future conflict with the law in regard to licensing is certain with regard to psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, and the like."

- Freedom of speech: The article cites two examples where the expression of religiously-based opposition to same-sex-marriage views in the workplace resulted in disciplinary action and the threat of legal action using sexual harassment laws as the instrument. In both cases, the charges were eventually dropped, but the strategy is clear: "People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation, and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. 'Soft' coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone's conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people."

- Financial sanctioning of religious groups: "Religious groups that take government funding will almost certainly be required to play by the nondiscrimination rules, but what about groups that, while receiving no government grants, are tax-exempt? Can a group--a church or religious charity, say--that opposes gay marriage keep its tax exemption if gay marriage becomes the law? "

- Roe v. Wade, Family law and health care law as precedence: The article suggests there will be legal precedence following the model of Roe v. Wade and related subsequent litigation regarding the impact of the abortion law on health care providers; that there will be "a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others."

Although Roe and Griswold established only the right to noninterference by the state in a woman's abortion and contraceptive decisions, family planning advocates have worked strenuously to force individual institutions to provide controversial services, and to force individual health care providers to participate in them. . . This litigation after Roe . . provides a convincing prediction about the trajectory that litigation after Goodridge will take." (Goodridge being the Massachusetts supreme court decision that legalized gay marriage).

. . .

The post-Roe litigation also provides fair warning about the limits of First Amendment protection. The lever used to force hospitals and doctors to perform abortions and sterilizations was the receipt of any public money. "Given the status of most churches as state nonprofits and federally tax-exempt organizations, it is likely that public support arguments will be advanced to compel churches to participate in same-sex marriage. Thus, churches in Massachusetts (and perhaps soon other states) may have much to worry about . . . Churches that oppose same-sex marriage today may perceive a credible, palpable threat to their tax-exempt status, the benefits of which are substantial.

Remember the Bob Jones case? This is where the rubber meets the road on that precedence: ". . . to be recognized as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must have purposes and activities that do not violate fundamental 'public policy.'"

Right now . . . there is no clear federal public policy against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But such a policy is imminent . . . most likely within the decade. Once that occurs . . . "Any organization that engaged in such discrimination as a matter of faith would be in a position similar to Bob Jones University."

It's not that hard to imagine: Pass an antidiscrimination law at the federal level, which polls suggest the majority of Americans already support; look for a 5-or 10-point swing in public opinion on gay marriage; then add a new IRS commissioner (not directly accountable to the voters) who wants to make his or her progressive mark, and religious groups would wake up to find themselves playing in a whole new ballgame.

. . .

Precisely because support for marriage is public policy, once marriage includes gay couples, groups who oppose gay marriage are likely to be judged in violation of public policy, triggering a host of negative consequences, including the loss of tax-exempt status. Because marriage is not a private act, but a protected public status, the legalization of gay marriage sends a strong signal that orientation is now on a par with race in the nondiscrimination game. And when we get gay marriage because courts have declared it a constitutional right, the signal is stronger still.

The precendences have been set. The government has demonstrated the willingness and ability to force religious organizations to comply in word and in practice with public policy, using financial, legal, social, even military pressure.

Of course, the threat to religious institutions may be unconcerning or even desirable to many liberal homosexual agenda proponents. Such institutions, after all, are one of the primary obstacles to their pursuit of unfettered, even government-sanctioned sexual liberties.

What should concern them, however, is the underlying principle: that the special interests of a minority group can effectively undermine, even undo foundational constitutional liberties previously provided to the entire nation.

Is that the America you want?

As I mentioned earlier, my grandmother has been staying with my beautiful bride and I... The original plan was for her to stay through October, but the extremely aggresive/optimistic 6 week schedule for completing her new little house has been lengthened by at least twice that.

Of course, at 91, we feel lucky to have her around at all, and having her stay with us for this time is just a bonus. And my sweet wife, bless her heart, is being incredibly patient and thoughtful with the situation.

At any rate, my life will probably continue to be a little off-kilter for another month, and that will probably continue to affect posting.

You wouldn't know it if you were relying on my blog for news, but a lot has happened in the world during the last month, especially the last week. In short, married life has been much busier than I expected. Which is not a bad thing at all!

But as a result, my blog is woefully outdated. I don't expect to be any more prompt within at least the rest of this month. But here's a round-up of recent events:

WMD recently celebrated their 2nd blogoversary. 2 years of great work, guys. (And, I must humbly add, they're sporting some nice new graphics.)

Hurricane Katrina has hit the gulf states pretty hard, as the media has gleefully worked to make everyone well aware.  (As much as they use somber music and banter about with terms like "tragic" and "catastrophic" the morbid truth is that the media lives for ratings-ensuring events like this: If it bleeds, it leads.)

Jason at Generation Why has been providing excellent post-Katrina coverage (particularly the hurricane blame roundup). The WMD team and Mahatma at Loonatic Left also have some great commentary.

I've never seen so many "leaders" falling all over themselves to pin the blame for poor disaster handling on everyone but themselves. President Bush has stepped up to accept responsibility for the federal handling, as a real leader should, even though the federal aid must specifically requested by state and local authorities. And as Mahatma has pointed out, the contrast between the Federal, State and Local "leadership" in this situation (case in point, the unbalanced raving and blame-shifting of the New Orleans mayor-- who lost complete control of his police force and ran away to Baton Rouge for a time) vs. the steadying force that was 9/11's Giuliani could not be more clear.

In that light, I'm left to wonder if this wasn't more of the response Osama bin Laden expected from the 9/11 attacks... partisan bickering, blame-shifting, finger-pointing... all while the innocent victims are languishing for want of aid. It also doesn't bode well for future attacks, especially being the eve of another 9/11 anniversary. I still see post-9/11 "United We Stand" bumper stickers on cars... How I long for the spirit of those days. Of course, even back then, the Michael Moore-ons of the world were quick to blame Bush and America.

Perhaps the frustration of a natural disaster like Katrina, of really having no legitimate culprit, has caused all the finger-pointing. Perhaps it would take more catastrophic attacks (and don't think they aren't being planned and attempted) would wake up the illiberal left to our real enemies and they will stop working to aid our destruction from the inside. And perhaps monkeys will...

The illiberal left has deified George W. Bush in making him the cause of the hurricane, a natural disaster normally attributed as an act of God.  The Black Congressional Caucus (why is there not a special white congressional caucus organization? Oh yeah, because that would be racist) has jumped in to make the hurricane a race issue.

Rev. Jesse "If there's a spotlight I'll be running to get in it" Jackson has blamed the aftermath of the hurricane on everything from Iraq, tax-cuts-for-the-rich, global warming, and racism. The way to prevent future hurricanes (and their resulting starving, dehydrated, homeless victims) according to the good Reverend, is apparently to pull the troops out of Iraq, end racism by instituting more race-based affirmative action policy, ban everything previous to steam technology and convert our free enterprise economic system to a Marxist wealth redistribution scheme. Yeah, that will do it.

Oprah Winfrey has thrown her two cents into the ring with the demand that all of America apologize to the gulf states for the Hurricane. Oops, I guess all us residents of other states should retract all our Red Cross contributions and kick out all the refugees we've taken in. Excuse us for getting involved, Oprah. I'm guessing you have a better view of the situation from your 2 stories of high-rise lake-front condo suite in Chicago.

Speaking of Chicago, I was there over the weekend, my wife and I were visiting some of her cousins. (We passed by the tower that Oprah lives in when taking in the sites of Lakeshore Drive, incidentally.) While there, my wife's cousins helped host their annual neighborhood Labor Day block party. Attending that party was the parents of one of the neighbors, who were evacuees of the mess formerly known as Louisiana. It was their opinion that race and income were not so much an issue of the New Orleans citizens who did not evacuate, but that a more significant factor was the policy for the King Dome that prohibited refugees from bringing in alcohol, drugs and firearms. It was their view as locals that many of those who were mobile enough to evacuate to the King Dome but chose not to, did so for less than noble reasons.

Of course, that's their opinion, but it adds a little insight to the looting and shots fired at first responders, doesn't it?

The old media is happy to broadcast the opinions of those who think the National Guard should have been in place sooner. Now that's logical... Let's move all the help into the hurricane's path BEFORE the hurricane hits.  Er-- pardon me, but wouldn't that put them in the same circumstances as all the victims? What, are they impervious to 100 MPH winds and flooding, just because they are the National Guard?

In other news, Chief Justice William Rehnquist has died, may he rest in peace. Funeral services take place today. Jason reports that the "compassionate" left has fallen a bit short of sober propriety when receiving the news.  I don't suppose Pres. Bush's announcement to replace him with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (who is practically in league with abortion clinic bombers, according to NARAL's version of reality) has added to their compassion. Expected to start as early as next week, blatant leftist hypocrisy on nominee hearing rules, shameless character assassination and biased Old Media coverage Congressional hearings will be held soon regarding Robert's nomination.

---

More 'celebrity' updates: Mahatma has a nice little piece on Sean Penn (perhaps an authority on floodings because he's been in movies whose titles have water in them?)

Mahatma notes that Penn's publicity "rescue" craft, designed for 4 people, was already filled to capacity with photographers, publicity agents and personal assistants when it launched to shamelessly seek attention "rescue children."

My thoughts: Why do those who make a living simply regurgitating the thoughts other people have written, think that we would would be interested in what they think?

The one group no one on the left seems to be willing to point fingers at are the looters who are pulling away the life-saving efforts of the first responders to handle the blatent stealing of survival-essential items such as plasma TVs and 20 pairs of jeans. Singer Celene Dion, (whose $135 - $375 concert ticket pricing shows an obvious understanding of the impact of poverty in people's lives) has rushed to the looters' defence with admirable logic:

"Maybe those people are so poor, some of the people who do that they're so poor they've never touched anything in their lives. Let them touch those things for once."

Ms. Dion, I'm sure there are plenty of nice things in your Las Vegas estate that the poor have never touched before... I wonder if you would be so understanding if it was your property being looted?

After lengthy lines and interviews, my fiance has been APPROVED for her visa! Yay!

The stuff is really going to hit the fan now, as everything we've been unable to do without being able to set a concrete date now has to be done in short order.

I'll be going to get her in mid-June, and we'll be wed in early July.

Expect blogging until the end of July to be, at best, more erratic. (Er, the frequency of posting will be more erratic, I mean. Some may argue that the content always has been. :)

VIA NRO's The Corner, a delightful alternative for "surplus" embryos (other than harvesting them for genetic material): Embryo Adoption. Be sure to check out the FAQs.

Before the dust can clear from the judicial filibuster betrayal sellout compromise, guess what Sen. Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy wants?

"Let's have an up-or-down vote," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in an interview.

NOW he wants an up-or-down vote?!? But not on judicial nominees who are so "radical" as to potentially interpret the Constitution as promoting the goal of "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"-- the philosophy with which the Founders began the Revolution that resulted in the creation of our Constitution.

NO, what he wants a vote on is a bill which would divert MY tax dollars to pay for the harvesting of human embryos for research labs. Nice agenda.

Let's not kid ourselves. When the goverment funds something, it institutionalizes that thing. Entire industries are created specifically with the design of receiving that government funding-- in this case, an industry that would be dependant on a constant supply of human embryos.  Lobbies are created and politicians are benefited to portray that industry as vital, even though it didn't previously exist. It becomes a self-serving cycle.

This is high school economics, folks... the laws of Supply and Demand. Government institutionalization of the harvesting of human embryos for research creates a demand for a steady flow of them. Do we really want to go in this direction?

It has been said that the two sure things in life are Death and Taxes. What I didn't realize is that one would be used to pay for the other.

...projected population growth and families, it looks like there is finally progress on my fiancee's visa application.

The next 3 months will be filled with embassy visa interviews, international moving adventures, wedding preparations, the wedding itself, and of course honeymooning. In the mean time, I've been seeing growth in a business venture I've partnered into on the side-- thankfully, my fiancee is quite excited about helping me build something we can call our own.  Of course, she's also very supportive of my blog, such as it is so far. But I'll need to focus some time to support my continued business growth if I expect to pay for all of the above. ; )

Needless to say, blogging may be light for the next 3 months or so... I'll try not to neglect it too much, as there are still a lot of things I intend to do with this blog that I haven't yet done. However, you may expect this blog to have significantly less pull on me than my bride-to-be. Heh.

The US Census Bureau has released projections on population growth to 2030.

I won't do a Red State/Blue State map like I did with the Economic Freedom Index or attribute these projections to any particular political policy. However, I did find interesting the possible political implications of the projections that of the 10 states expected to see the most growth by 2030, only numbers 9 and 10 were "blue states", Oregon and Washington.

Of course, 25 years is a long time and a lot could change by then. Will this make any changes to the electoral weight of red states? There is the fact that metropolitan areas tend to be more liberal and a rising population would increase the ranks in metropolitan areas as well-- would these states become more 'purple' from their increases? Blue states will still hold the top ranks for overall population numbers. Will that cancel out any potential gains made by red states?

My home state of Idaho ranked in at number 6 of the fastest growers, with it's southern neighbor Utah coming in at #5. I intended to make only observations and rhetorical questions here, but I couldn't help wondering... How much of this projected growth is expected to be due to "native" births and how many are imports from other states seeking refuge from the high population, crime rates and cost of living in states like California? How many are seeking the economic freedom noted earlier?

And, in the case of conservative Christian right states like Idaho and Utah (two of the "reddest" states in the 2004 elections) how much of that projected population growth would be due to a greater emphasis on the value of families (and correspondingly larger family sizes) vs. a smaller number of practitioners of liberal "rights" such as abortion-on-demand and same-gender relationships-- both obviously dampers on childbirth rates.

Well, I guess this is all still rhetorical, no real answers, but... still interesting things to consider.

UPDATE: Michael Barone has similar thoughts:

Who inherits the future? In free societies, each generation makes its own religious choices, but people tend to follow the faith of their parents. Secular Europe, with below-replacement birthrates among non-Muslims, could be headed for a Muslim future, as historian Niall Ferguson suggests.

  In the United States, as pointed out by Phillip Longman in "The Empty Cradle" and Ben Wattenberg in "Fewer," birth rates are above replacement level largely because of immigrants. But, as Longman notes, religious people have more children than seculars. Those who believe in "family values" are more likely to have families.

(Note: Austin Bay had a couple of Barone-inspired posts and ensuing dicussions on a similar vein here and here.)

This doesn't mean we're headed to a theocracy: America is too diverse and freedom-loving for that. But it does mean that we're probably not headed to the predominantly secular society that liberals predicted half a century ago and that Europe has now embraced.

Update: My friend Peter K. of Media, Technology and Society has responded in his blog to take issue with the idea that same-sex relationships would be a damper on birthrates.

Peter, while there is more material here which I would disagree with (and may eventually in another post if I have time) I'll focus on the specific topic at hand.

Your description of the extraneous means same-sex couples must undertake in order to obtain children would indeed be a dampening factor in actual birth rates in comparison to heterosexual couples whose means of producing children is more naturally and conveniently available to them.  Almost as if it was.. hmm.. meant to be that way. Or, from a secular perspective, almost as if nature selects those features which guarantee the survival of a species and weeds out those which do not. Hmm.

If we're talking total number of those who define themselves as homosexual who happen to also be engaging in a parental role, or any discussion of moral concerns for or against the practice, those are entirely different questions.

Certainly same-sex couples can adopt children in most states, but the adoption of children conceived by heterosexual means does not disprove the effect of same-sex relationships on childbirth rates, it corroberates the idea that childbirth is a result of heterosexual means and the same-sex adoptive couples simply come along after the fact. I and my future wife might swipe a kitten from a mother cat and proclaim that we're sustaining the birthrate of cats by that means, we might even claim we are just as capable as a mother cat in raising her kitten (and indeed we might be), but we would still in reality be dependant upon cats to produce kittens.

While it is true that there is an increasing openness regarding same-sex relationships in society, which in turn fosters an increased practice of the behavior (and I use the term behavior purposely and specifically) and an increased percentage of those willing to experiment in sexual behavior and define themselves in terms of that behavior, which would lead to an increase in the number of those self-defined by same-sex behavior who want to or do raise children-- although, as mentioned, it's obviously physiologically impossible for children to be the natural result of choosing same-sex partners for sexual activity and/or relationships-- nevertheless, by sheer numbers of same-sex couples and due to resources afforded to them through science and "progressive" society it is technically possible to sidestep the laws of nature and produce children-- i.e. surrogacy and artificial insemination, etc. But speaking in a Darwinian sense, this is not a sustainable model, except for as long as the technology exists to artificially sustain it.

However, your point is made that those resources do currently exist and there are same-sex couples who take advantage of those resources for the means of imitating nature in a relationship which would not otherwise accomodate reproproduction of the species, from a physiological standpoint. However, those means are more costly, more complex, and therefore more difficult to obtain in comparison to the readily available, indeed prolific means of reproduction afforded by nature, and will therefore continue to fall behind in actual birthrates in comparison.

In short, that which is easier to do will be done more frequently and in more abundance that that which is more difficult and more costly to do. The path of least resistance will always be the more heavily travelled path.

If at sometime in the future, the cost, availability and social acceptance of artificial means such as surrogate births, artificial insemination and/or "test tube babies" specifically for the purpose of same-sex parenting becomes as equally feasible and accessable as the "birds and the bees" method of reproducing, then same-sex couples would not have a lower birthrate than their heterosexual counterparts. But until then, I think my original statement is a fairly safe assumption.

The left, and especially those with a same-gender relationship agena, tend to be very vocal about concepts such as "tolerance" and "diversity" and speak out against hate crimes (no civilized person would be for hate crimes, of course.)

Demonstrating their commitment to tolerance, diversity and an opposition to hate crimes against specific groups, arsonists first emailed threats and then acted on them, using gasoline to attempt the burning of a Kansas Baptist church which had promoted a state marriage amendment banning same-gender marriages and civil unions.

The arson, occuring the Sunday before the Tuesday election featuring the amendment, burned exterior stairs, walls and a few trees. Threats via email and regular mail had preceded the attempted fire:

"It was a pretty extensive area burned, and it was obvious they were trying to burn the church building down," [Wichita pastor Terry Fox, an amendment supporter] said.

He is certain that someone who opposed the amendment was behind the crime.

"I don't think there's any questioning that," he said. "... Here it was Sunday morning, and the vote was Tuesday. Of course, we've had bodily threats by e-mail."

The amendment passed easily, with a 70-30 margin. The only county where the measure didn't pass was in Douglas county, where the University of Kansas is located. There's a shocker. But of course, Universities aren't liberally biased. The amendment was heavily editorialized against in the local Wichita paper-- another shocker. But of course, the media isn't liberally biased.

The 70-30 percent margin of victory, Fox said, should have national implications. A March poll had it winning with only 54 percent of the vote. Another poll had it winning at 62 percent.

"It shows that in the heartland there's passion for a federal amendment now," said [Fox.] "This wasn't on the coattails of something else, like electing a president."

Instead, the amendment was the lead item statewide. The rest of the ballot featured local races such as those for city council.

The amendment increased turnout significantly, with approximately 592,000 people voting on the amendment itself. By comparison, in April 1999 a constitutional amendment concerning property taxes attracted only 269,000 total votes.

"People who came to vote came for this very purpose," Fox said.

Kansas makes this the 18th passed out of 18 states who have proposed marriage amendments. Only 2 of those states, Michigan and Oregon, passed with less that 60 percent of the vote.

You see, this is why the same-gender movement pursues their agenda in the courts, overseen by liberal, unelected, unaccountable judges-- because they can't get it passed by democratic means. Or intimidate their opposition by arson.