My perception is that you HAVE pushed the gay marriage agenda here on this thread and several others preceding this one and you can take all the umbrage at that you like. It remains my perception.
Perception I can accept. Perception pronounced as truth is quite another matter. That I don't accept.
I vehemently disagree with you that anti-gay marriage is a loosing issue and STRONGLY suspect that we will find out for sure about that very soon. I also disagree with your assertion that giving in to public opinion that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution is the conservative thing to do in ANY case.
I guess public opinion is no longer part of the debate. Good. Now, if public opinion favors gay marriage, and it's simply not an issue most Americans would want to deal with during the elections, why should the GOP candidates push it? Aren't issues like public debt, spending, jobs, national security, the future of energy, the real elephants in the room? Just as you think I'm trying to change your opinion on SSM (which I'm not), wouldn't Republicans be trying to change most Americans' opinions on the same issue? Why is one bad, the other good?
I also disagree with you when you say that 9, 8, 7, 6, or 5 unelected people in black robes get to pronounce what the law is in this country and they sure as hell don't get to make it up out of whole cloth as they did in this case! We have debated that in the past as well.
I'm not sure what you think we should do other than push for a constitutional amendment...which was tried ten years ago. As a conservative that supports tradition and institutions, I don't have to agree with every SCOTUS decision, but I do have to respect its position as an equal branch of government.
I disagree with you when you say that the child of any illegal who manages to get onto U.S soil in time to drop her progeny here can legally become president of our country someday and we have debated that at length.
The burden is on you to substantiate that the 14th Amendment has some hidden third category of citizenship in it. But you have no problem with Cruz being president. I'm not sure why a "Cruz" would be acceptable but a "Martinez" wouldn't even though Martinez was born here "naturally" and Cruz was born in Canada.
The fact is that you and I have debated several issues here over the past several months (you and I don't seem to agree on much) but we have been civil to each other and I intend to keep it that way for my part.
As I said Bigun, you are a decent guy even though, just as you charge me, you too have an agenda.