But I will respond that Loving is not a very persuasive comparison for me.

Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman over history. There have been some variation of it but at its core, it is a union of opposite sexes.

Loving only addressed state marriage regulations concerning skin color. But the state has always regulated marriage (siblings can’t get married, must be a certain age, etc.).

Allowing marriage regardless of skin color is very different than allowing marriage regardless of sex. That is a huge redefinition, which SSM advocates don’t seem to appreciate when they berate those who disagree with them.

Abortion has been a hugely divisive issue in large part because the Supreme Court handed down its edict very undemocratically. It has since been a very polarizing issue that remains hotly contested to this day. In my view, gay marriage is going to follow a similar history if its advocates push it solely in the courts and continue to respond to dissenters with harassment and angry protests.

You know, I have long felt that public support for gay and lesbian couples is necessary for their marriages to truly fulfill the societal aspect of marriage. Marriage is, after all, partly a contract with the community to support the couple as a marital unit. If society is unwilling to fulfill that role, then gay and lesbian marriages are really nothing more than civil unions with a fancy name. Therefore, a vote by the people to support the extension of marriage to gay and lesbian couples would go a long way in making their marriages function much as traditional marriages have in the societal sense.

So, in some respects, I thought that a public vote was important and had hoped to see California support its gay and lesbian citizens by voting down Prop 8. What happened instead was a campaign using children to vilify gay people as something to be feared. And that hateful campaign approach is another reason I have no respect for Prop 8.

But since you bring up the matter of a “public debate,” which is how Prop 8 was framed by the religious right, I would note that regardless of the need for societal support for married couples, Loving v. Virginia at the time preempted a public debate. Indeed, the majority of public sentiment at the time was against inter-racial nuptials. So there are clearly situations where a public vote is forgone in the interest of fundamental civil rights.

Imagine a referendum to forbid Mormons from going to the temple unless it is open to the public, because some concerned citizens think the LDS Church is a cult and are doing unspeakable things within the temple walls. Could you respect such an initiative?

The situation with Margie Christoffersen is really sad. But she was put in an awkward position because of the shameful proposition and the pressure from church leaders to support it. The Yes on 8 framed it as simply a vote on the definition of marriage for the state of California, so it is easy to see how Margie would have not considered that she was actually offending part of her customer base by helping to eliminate their right to marry. It’s just sad all the way around.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Margie Christofferson told customers no such thing as you describe. She simply donated to a political cause she believed in. And now angry activists are punishing her restaurant and the customers for that $100 she gave.

Too often, the terms “McCarthyism” and “blacklists” have been unfairly bandied about to decry legitimate political criticism. But they seem applicable here. It may legal and fair, but I believe most people find it despicable and in the end will be counter-productive to the goals of the same-sex marriage crowd.

There you go again framing Prop 8 as a simple ideological debate or a bond initiative. What if your marriage had been voted away? This isn’t about having disagreeable viewpoints or theology. Margie Christoffersen can believe what she wants. But when she, through her actions, tells her gay customers that they are second-class citizens she shouldn’t expect them to patronize her restaurant.

We have come a long way from civil unions being enacted a decade ago to now being an automatic bigot and hater for not embracing same-sex marriage. Ever more, gays shouldn’t have to be expected to work or deal with people who disagree with them. That’s quite an amazing position.

Is that what “tolerance” means these days?

Well no, not exactly. They have the right to free speech, which means that the government can’t punish them for expressing their opinion. But it doesn’t mean they can’t be criticized by other citizens.

Andrew Sullivan gave the example of a white jazz musician in the 1950s giving money to support a ban on miscegenation. “That is his right. But how is an African-American supposed to play a set with such a person? It’s not easy.”

So if a Mormon works in the Arts, which generally employs a large portion of gay people, and chooses to give money to strip gays of their civil rights, should he expect to do so without criticism? Should he expect to continue to work side-by-side with gay people as if he had simply participated in an ideological debate?

Or if a Mormon manager of a gay-friendly restaurant spits in the face of her gay customers, should she expect them to come back and spend their money at her establishment? She has a right to express herself politically and religiously, but should she expect those whom she helped malign in the media, by financially supporting Prop 8, to not take it as a slap in the face?