If you have some extra time on your hands, and you don't have anything better to do, such as cleaning the lint filter on the dryer, or using creme rinse as well as conditioner on your hair, you might read this anti-gay marriage "essay" at Townhall. It's so turgid, festooned out with gen-u-wine footnotes, and all in all so completely fails to address the point in any way, much less a convincing way...well, there's not much to be said about it. I mean, I'd "take it apart", but it's lying there disjoint like a supermarket fryer family pack, and we all know my predilection for trying to help these people out. I'd have the franken-chicken stitched together in no time and be waving the wings around with my own hands. Let it suffice to say that a) a consideration of the declaration of independence doesn't really do the needed work of enshrining "natural law" b) the concept of natural law invoked doesn't self-evidently preclude gay marriage and c) complaining at length about judicial activism in the course of an article intended to persuade citizens to express the popular will in a vote strikes me as...tone-deaf. (AS John points out, trying to reconceive Millian liberalism without tolerance is a fool's errand, and I would add that in this case someone very well suited to the job has taken it on.) Should the California electorate decide to explicitly allow gay marriage by declining to ban it when given the chance, I trust everyone will be mollified and consider gay marriage in California legitimate. Because when you support states' rights, and people support something with a popular vote, you...what? You mean that wasn't principled opposition to judicial activism, but rather strongly held views about the result independently of how it was enacted? Well, at least abortion rights are safe.