Maybe sometimes we get carried away with our ideas. Check it out by reversing the argument sometimes.
Do people with common beliefs have the right to form communities where those beliefs are honored?
The idea of federalism leans towards a single universal standard, the idea of local governance creates some space where people can locally set up something of their own desire, regardless of what "outsiders" may want. There's always a push and a pushback if people actually do have rights. If people have no rights, it's somebody else's idea that rules. And whatever you think, you're entirely powerless.
I think the GLBT agenda, if imposed on communities "from above", as say in the case of this federal court, erodes the entire concept of individual liberty. If the courts can claim this power, the people have lost theirs. So establish this precedent, and some court fifty years down the road is going to be imposing some other idea on everyone, maybe even turning things back around and throwing people who don't fit in with the "law du jour" in jail, or ordering re-education for "compliance" on any other idea.
If we say the government should never respond to people's contemporary values, we are actually saying there is a limit on the right to assemble and seek redress of grievances, or to seek circumstances of life that are compatible with our values. What I'd like to see is a lot less "top-down" problem solving. A lot more individual problem-solving. . . . maybe more give and take between people with their own ways, a lot more "live and let live".
