I decided to post a reply at Kele's Journey in order to maybe start up some dialogue. Kele's politically liberal, from what I can tell, and apparently an atheist ... so we've got plenty to talk about.
Kele had a post talking about James Dobson's comments on the gay marriage issue, and had an expanded post showing some maps that were colored in according to where gay marriage was "banned" (among other things).
I posted the following, just to get a feel for how Kele would respond to a challenge regarding the rhetorical treatment of facts:
It's improper to say that states are outlawing homosexual marriage by amendment. Rather, they are withholding government recognition from homosexual unions. Homosexuals remain free to have church ceremonies, exchange rings and vows, and cohabitate monogamously (among other things).
They [amendment proponents--bww] are also, of course, by statute preserving the traditional definition of "marriage" rather than allowing courts to effectively legislate without respecting the intent of previous legislation.
So, we'll see what happens.
Update 10:00 p.m. 6/29/06:
Kele replied promptly, and with apparent good sense. He allowed the distinction between literally making homosexual relationships illegal and the state declining to recognize those relationships. He affirmed that he referred to the latter with the "banning" phrase, finding that it was just a different way to express the same idea.