Congratulations to you guys. Have a bit of mercy on the rest of us when you win. Come visit me in prison in 2011 after I preach from Romans 1.

I’m admittedly surprised by the poll numbers coming out of Georgia and North Carolina. West Virginia and Missouri are also surprisingly close. I still think that McCain will likely win comfortably in Georgia. But who knows at this point. High African-American turnout (as seems to be happening with early voting) plus a good showing for Bob Barr and McCain could actually lose Georgia. When it comes to Georgia, my real hope is that Jim Martin will whoop up on Saxby Chambliss. I campaigned for Cleland when he lost to Chambliss back in 2002 in a rather ugly campaign.

Not only do you sound a bit like McCain, but you are likely to garner nearly as many electoral votes on Nov 4.

Pardon me for yanking upon your chain, but I could not resist. On Feb 9 you came to a post on my blog and expressed doubt that Democrats could manage to pick off any Southern states this Fall. As of this moment, RealClearPolitics forecasts VA for Obama and NC as a toss-up (polling in Obama's favor). Georgia is categorized as "leaning McCain," but the margin there is thin—barely outside the margin of error. I don't know whether you consider MO to be a "Southern" state, but it will go to Obama, too, I predict.

Do you remain resolute about the South being solid for the GOP?

I'm predicting Georgia for Obama.

My opinion, on which you’ve focused, was separately stated and religiously motivated. Like an amicus brief by Catholic bishops joining others in legal argument, it’s a voice in the public discourse. As you noted, government isn’t going to adopt much without a broad coalition of secular support and reasoning. If they did, yes it would be constitutionally vulnerable. Those First Amendment lines can be hard to predict, depending on circumstances and how government money is spent.

I’m just pointing out that if one makes an argument as you have made, there’s no way to avoid an establishment-clause problem.

Haven’t heard that one before. Seems convoluted.

Being religiously motivated to enter the public discourse is fine. To be expected, even–to do otherwise would betray one’s faith. But when asked to defend one’s religiously-inspired positions, religious explanations do not suffice.

Jesus says to feed the hungry and clothe the poor. This may convince Christians of your policy proposal (or it may not. . .), but it won’t have any traction with a Hindu. So part of your divine mandate is not only to espouse the position, but to defend it in a way which will convince those whom God has not inspired with the same conviction.

It’s fine for religion and politics to mix in an inspirational sense, so long as there are secular reasons for the policies. Which it seems to me is the gist of the first prong of the Lemon Test.

‘His concept’ of marriage *is* out there, regardless of the status of the law. As it is, any church can marry any two (or more. . .) people it wants–provided they don’t seek government sanction. Did the Early Church need the Roman Imperial imprimatur to bless its unions? Were they any less salt and light?

Restricting the legal institution of marriage to just opposite-sex couples is not ‘having His concept out there in public’; it’s ‘having the government endorse His concept’. God does not need, and the First Amendment does not permit, that sort of endorsement.