JulieAnna brings up a good point in noting the denotative (i.e, explicit, language based) difference between traditional (i.e, legal) marriage and Christian marriage.

Once you denotatively acknowledge "church" and "state" as separate and distinct authorities in the determination of what does or does not constitute a "traditional" marriage, the next step is to admit that all arguments for and against same-sex marriage and its position in society vis-a-vis other-(s)ex marriages are actually connotative (i.e, subjective, emotional) arguments based on dominant value systems and social norms.

The idea of traditional Christian marriage is not fixed at all, but varies between religions. Protestants and Catholics are good examples. You could argue that Protestant Christianity owes its existence in large part to the desire of the Western European monarchs to free themselves from Roman Catholic rule. Two practical and "legal" results of the Reformation were 1) the ability of the male clergy to marry and 2) the ability of european monarchs to remediate the relationship between god and the faithful, even if it required the creation of a new religion to do so.

Traditional Christian marriage is clear in its denotative and connotative exclusion of same-sex marriage. In all of history, no form of traditional Christian marriage has included same sex marriage. The Abrahamic religions have, however, changed at various times to include serial monogamy (Protestantism) and polygamy (ex. Jewish harems in Talmud law and Mormonism in the U.S.). So, depending on whose version of Christianity you are espousing, serial monogamy (ie., divorce) and polygamy may or may not be considered a sin.

Legal marriage is fully denotative in nature. A "traditional" legal marriage is whatever the state defines as legal. Once you remove the authority of Christianity from the argument, there is no reason that same sex marriage should not be considered "traditional" under the norms of secular society and there is no reason it should not be legalized. Same-sex marriage is both legal and "traditional" in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa and Spain.

You cannot switch back and forth to suit yourself. If you are Christian and Catholic, divorce and remarriage, without the express permission of the Church, is adultery. If you are Protestant, serial monogamy outside the "forgiving" walls of the Protestant church and its faithful is still adultery.

If you are a Christian, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Serial monogamy is a sin or it is not. Polygamy is a sin or it is not. Homosexuality is a sin or it is not. You can ask for forgiveness and receive it. So can any other sinner. Even a murderer. But that does not mean that the murderer goes free. And that does not mean that the adulterer does not remain an adulterer.

If you insist that all forms of traditional marriage are defined by Christian dogma, then everyone who is divorced and remarried is living in adultery. The children by any other marriage than the first are "bastards" (as some so eloquently put it). And there is no place for same-sex marriage.

If you allow traditional marriage to be defined by secular law, then, in a democracy, it is the will of the people that defines the rule and limits of marriage.

Pick one or the other. Church or state. It's dishonest to switch back and forth to suit a political agenda.

It seems that people in power who promote "traditional values" and "family values" have selective memories regarding their own conduct: McCain, Craig, Vitter, Livingston, Gingrich, Guiliani, Foley, et al. Bloggers can help citizens remember what certain "men of principal" in positions of power seem to have forgotten, denied or ignored about their own behavior. Does being in power impair one's memory? Sometimes it's important for the public to be reminded of what politicians wish would be forgotten.

"What Vitter admitted to -- hiring prostitutes in Washington -- is illegal."

As far as I know, Vitter has never admitted to hiring prostitutes - either in Washington or any place else. He was very specific in his press conference when he only admitted to committing a sin, but he, to my knowledge, has never, ever specifically admitted using the services of a prostitute.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there - with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

Does being in power impair one's memory?

It certainly doesn't seem to have any beneficial effects on ones' character.

Does anyone in America besides Congress oppose term limits?

JulieAnna:

If pressed on the issue, I'm sure McCain WOULD back his argument with some religious/biblical stance.

Never credit them with the logical train of thought you yourself might follow. Actually, the arguments laid out on a page like this one are what you'd most likely run into (see "Drawing the Line"):

http://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Traditional-Marriage

They can all be disproved, btw, but that would require someone with a willingness to listen and an ability to comprehend complex ideas-- not traits normally associated with the "traditional values" folks.

"Does anyone in America besides Congress oppose term limits?"

Yes. Whoever voted for their current representative probably opposes term limits.

I'd guess that many (if not most) people want term limits but they don't want them to apply to "their" congressman if he is of their political pursuasion.

I'm seriously curious.

"God forgave me for, stealing that car, robbing that store, breaking into that house, raping that woman, molesting that child, lying under oath and eating too much ice cream."

The "eating too much ice cream" might seem a sin, but it is not a crime. Every other confession is a crime. Is the public confession of a "sin" evidentiary when the sin is also a crime?

In Vitter's case, I am also including the first-person accounts by the prostitutes as well as the phone records as evidence.

Were there credit-card transactions? I don't remember.

The Vitter (and Republican presidential candidate marriage) episodes remind me of the following scene in O Brother Where Art Thou?

Pete: Well I'll be a sonofabitch. Delmar's been saved.

Delmar O'Donnell: Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward.

Ulysses Everett McGill: Delmar, what are you talking about? We've got bigger fish to fry.

Delmar O'Donnell: The preacher says all my sins is warshed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo.

Ulysses Everett McGill: I thought you said you was innocent of those charges?

Delmar O'Donnell: Well I was lyin'. And the preacher says that that sin's been warshed away too. Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now. C'mon in boys, the water is fine.