It’s really quite simple. Economically, there is not gay marriage and straight marriage, there is only marriage. Gay people make up approximately 10% of society. Any economic argument for or against gay marriage applies to straight marriage times nine. If the GOP wants to argue that gay marriage is just too expensive, then, by default, they are making the argument that straight marriage is just too expensive by a much wider margin. Steele can’t argue that he wishes to ban gay marriage for economic reasons without simultaneously arguing that he wants to ban straight marriage even more (9X more). If “nobody should be able to get married, period” is the message the GOP wants to sell, more power to them, but I doubt it’s a winning platform.

Few would disagree that the GOP is in disarray right now. One faction will eventually rise and take control (or the whole party could go under, but I somehow doubt that). I think there’s good reason to think that more socially moderate voices such as the McCains and Schmidt will win out over the Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins. Don’t get me wrong, the GOP will remain socially conservative, but the more extreme examples of social conservatism stand a good chance of falling by the wayside.

Younger conservatives really just aren’t that concerned with social issues; even among the religious right. Abortion is still a biggie, but not so much as it was for the parents of this new generation. Opposition to gay rights is relatively small and dispassionate among the younger GOP. If the GOP wants to re-achieve a majority, it will court these younger conservatives by easing off on it’s focus on social issues. If it doesn’t, then it will continue to lose until such time as it DOES listen to the Meghan McCain’s and Steve Schmidts of the party.

(via Shoot the Moose)

Me: I had the day off for the Inauguration so I thought I’d beat the crowds.

Stylist: That’s nice, it’s always pretty empty here until about 6. Did you take the day off to watch the inauguration?

Me: Well, I did watch the inauguration ceremony but it was actually one of our company holidays for 2009, which I think is a kinda strange day to have off, but I’m not complaining.

Stylist: So do you think you’ll get Inauguration day off next year too?

Me: Umm… …there’s only an inauguration every four years.

Stylist: Oh.

Of course, it shouldn’t have caught anybody off guard, I don’t think. Isn’t this precisely the thing Obama promised to do; reach across the aisle, acknowledge all Americans, etc? While I absolutely understand, and consider valid, the argument that we risk legitimizing abhorrent views when we honor those who hold them, I’m not convinced the risk is that great here. Were Obama to pick James Dobson, I’d absolutely be singing a different tune. Dobson is KNOWN for his hate. He’s based his entire career on it. Warren has some hateful views and has said some hateful things, but hate is not so inextricably linked to him that one cannot acknowledge positive attributes about him without validating the hate.

I don’t see having Warren come give a non-controversial prayer (if he injects socially conservative issues into it, it’s a different story altogether) as a acceptance, promotion, or even tolerance of his objectionable views. Rather, it’s offering a role in working together on what we can agree on, and I can’t find much wrong with that. As I said, it’s a prayer, not a cabinet position. There’s no power to the role. I don’t want Rick Warren making policy, but if there are parts of an Obama presidency that he can agree with, I for one don’t mind letting him have a part.