Since writing Why we need a progressive national policy something has been gnawing at the back of my mind. Then Lester mentioned an article at Salon, and it clicked. State's rights.

When I say people want to live the way they choose, I recognize that prime among people's requirements is that their not be constantly challenged in fundamental ways.<set mode="Chaos Lord" />From a spiritual development perspective, this is weak as hell and I have no sympathy for any of you, but<set mode="mortal" /> this is understandable. If a community doesn't give you the stability you need to build the life you want it makes little sense to attach to it. Barring any restrictions at all, people will self sort into communities of like minds that blend at the edges (a really weak metaphor, but that's the best I can do off the top of my head). That feels like pretty strong support for state's rights.

The problem is, once codified, it is subject to manipulation. This self-sorting will happen. That recognizing it will happen is a different order of business than insisting it must happen this way.