Contrary to what Mr. Walken suggests, the movement to expand the reality of what a family can be to include many kinds of definitions is pro-family, res ipsa loquitur. Wanting to limit this reality is anti-family.

Salon, please stop this stupid column. It's not even satire or amusing. Salon used to be a good place to find interesting political discourse. This column demeans Salon. If you continue to support this column, people, myself in particular, will no longer support Salon.

...is forty percent a majority? By your own statistics, sixty percent of Americans call themselves something other than "conservative". By adding self-described "moderates" to the "liberal" category instead of the "conservative" one, we wind up with a 3-to-2 majority of liberals in America.

"Hello again. This week the editors at Salon have asked me to address how it can be, as Joe V. said in his question and as many of you asked in your letters and comments on last week's column, that conservatives continue to believe America is a center-right country."

What editors at Salon?

Thought you could pull a fast one, eh?

Thanks for the etymology. I'll certainly side with Webster over Wingnut any day of the week. A "family" is pretty much anything we say it is - it's been an extremely flexible concept since the dawn of time, considering that its basic purpose is to ensure survival and prosperity, however people want to set it up. "Family values" is a buzzword, pure and simple, and the sooner people realize that the better for families everywhere.

Regarding the statistics Wingnut cites, it would be just as easy to respond by quoting those stats that show that people in the "red states" have considerably higher percentages of rape, child abuse, divorce etc. than people in the "blue states." But none of this really tells us anything. As Disraeli said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

To be honest, the responses from the Wingnut aren't all that useful. They simply replay the same tired themes and assumptions we find in conservative circles. I hope conservatives stay right where this guy is, because we have a bunch of progressive changes to enact. Conservatives are toothless as long as they are willing to keep deluding themselves.

However, I really enjoy the discussion in these letters (minus the mindless profanity). You see here why progressives are on the march. There's passion and energy. There are new ideas and a willingness to challenge the status quo.

It reminds me of Republicans in the middle 90s, except we actually intend to get this stuff done. I don't think Newt and Co. ever really intended to enact most of their "contract."

So, though I would like to Salon to find a better conservative to write this article, please keep the letters. They're great.

(Drop the f-bombs, though, people. They only make you look like screaming teenagers.)

Who would deny it.

Pro family values? Nancy was pregnant when they married. He was essentially estranged from his son.

Pro religion? He never went to church.

Small government? He ran up deficits for everyone of the 8 years he was president. The size of the government went up far in excess of the growth in population while he was president.

Honesty in government? Iran-contra.

It seems that being a conservative means that it is best to be a hypocrite.

"I almost didn't have time to do my translation this week. I have a full schedule of job dodging, Oprah watching, family destroying, welfare collecting, and putting off my dozens of girlfriends' abortions until the last minute."

As well, it's not often Cthulu gives RI much time for such frivolity. He's got those "Destroy all Bonefish Grills, Joe's Crab Shacks, and Red Lobsters" global plans to finish implementing...;)

Seriously, this guys is the best that conservatives have to offer?

Just because liberals want to do what you call "redefining" family doesn't mean we aren't in favor of family. First of all, anyone who equates 'family' with the narrow definition of 'married nuclear family' is the revisionist. Throughout history families have, for various reasons, come in all different forms. In particular, there are already families in which both at-home parents are gay. Pushing to recognize that fact is no way contrary to placing a high value on family.

Second, the government having too much influence on our lives can mean lots of different things. To some it no-doubt means they want lower taxes and fewer workplace safety requires and so forth. To others it means less unchecked surveillance, less security theater, and an end to the war on drugs.

The Republicans brand themselves as the party of less government, but they aren't. Just because someone wants less government, it doesn't mean they want those reductions in the same area you do.

Salon, I understand the desire to offer alternative outlooks and to promote communication across the political spectrum, but this column is just worthless. Any discourse, whether from the right or left, which is premised on the idea that there are distinct, discretely identifiable 'sides' further trivializes rather than enriching the discussion.

Walken:

Yes, liberals like to expand the "institution" of marriage to people who are not currently covered. Nowadays, that means pushing for same-sex marriage. You are fine to believe that's not a good idea but ponder these following thoughts in your small head.

Fifty years ago, expanding the institution of marriage meant pushing for interracial marriages. You don't think that's a bad idea, do you? So-called "conservatives," like you Walken, fought against the idea tooth and nail, using all of the arguments that their contemporaries are using against same-sex marriage now; "it will destroy marriage," "it will change an institution that has been the same forever." Those arguments were simply covers for racists in a time when blatant racism was increasingly politically incorrect. The similar arguments used by you and your modern day contemporaries are simply covers for your gay-bashing and deeper homophobia. (On a side note, Gay Pride festivals are happening nationwide around this time; you are obviously suppressing something with your camouflaged hate and you should check them out... you may discover something about yourself.)

Further, "conservatives" like you completely sidestep a more important issue with modern-day marriage than its expansion to same-sex couples, probably because conservatives have no comprehension that they are actually responsible for the problem. Nearly 50% of hetero marriages end in divorce; millions of American children are products of broken homes. Actual "center-right" values of no sex before marriage and forcing young people to marry before they are ready in their early 20s are the major reasons behind the broken institution of marriage we have in America.

To be honest, why the LGBT community wants to be a part of this broken institution is beyond me... I say just scrap the thing completely.