One of the major problems we have in the country now is that the government is doing all sorts of things that it either shouldn't be doing or isn't authorized to do. You bring up the issue of gay marriage. Where exactly, prithee tell, does it say in the constitution that the federal government gets to regulate marriage? (Hint: it doesn't). Theoretically, therefore, it would be at best a state issue. So why is this an issue for a presidential candidate?

The answer is, of course, that government at all levels has been increasingly intruding into people's private lives. And therein lies the rub. If you want to destroy any kind of social compact, the best way to do it is to start trying to regulate people's private lives as opposed to how we interact with each other and/or with the state. This is the fundamental reason why our national discourse has become so acrimonious.

The amusing thing about this intrusion into our private lives is that it rarely, if ever, results in a truly salubrious consequence. Usually, all that happens is whatever group who wants everybody to be like them is happy and goes off looking for some other facet of life to try and cram down people's throats and the people who are told that their lifestyle is unacceptable are pissed off.

And the amusing thing about the specific topic which you raise is that the Christian fundamentalist fanatics who are trumpeting these marriage amendments act as if the various churches are in charge of marriage and, therefore, should be able to set the rules. In fact, the states control marriage. You can be married by a dozen ministers and it won't mean a thing unless you have the marriage license. And if you have a marriage license, you don't need a church; all you need is a justice of the peace.

Unfortunately, people who actually advocate less government (which would only sort of include Ron Paul) are usually labeled fringe or radical.

I'd like to know.

And I can demonstrate this with a story from my wife's history.

Back in the late '60s my (very much future) wife was very ill and in the hospital. There was a guy working in the hospital who had a conscienous objector deferral from Vietnam. And he was a Maoist. So he would sit by her bedside and read Maoist tracts to her (she couldn't move much). He would get to the end of one of these tracts and he'd ask her - Do you understand? Yes. Do you agree? No. She did not. His response was - Then you don't understand and he'd go back to the top.

I think the reason why the military is respected is because it has heretofore been non-political. We can trust them because they aren't a tool of the ruling elite (as is the case in, for example, Pakistan). When the civilian leadership say go, they say Yes, Sir! That's exactly what I expect them to do. (Full disclosure: USAF 1969-1975).

The imperialist warmongers in Washington? That's a different matter.