Going over his wikipedia entry, I wonder if he really is a Libertarian.  Was strong Anti-Drug advocate, though he has now switched, author of the Defense of Marriage act, voted for the Patriot Act?  This is not very strong Libertarian standings IMO. 

Which part, if you dont mind me asking....

FastangLX wrote I have no problem with the patriot act and I strongly believe marriage should be legally defined as between a man and a woman.

So how does the Patriot Act and government involvement in an intensely personal choice fit the "small government" ideals of conservatism? 

Well I disagree on pretty much all counts there. When you remove the requirement for warrants, you remove a vital check against the federal government that you will never get back.  Think of the precedent that sets.  Even if you trust GWB (I dont) to use those powers for the good of the people, do you trust the next president?  The one after?  You have opened a very large loophole for anyone who wants to seize excessive power to do exactly that.   Combine that with the suspension of habeas corpus, we now have provided the government the means to become exactly what we are trying to avoid.  Maybe it wont happen now, or next year, but if these loopholes are allowed to remain, it WILL happen. 

Now, for the defense of marriage.  I think it is interesting that people against gay marriage feel that all marriage is somehow sullied because someone else wants to get married too.  There is nothing that the government (or anyone else) could do to undermine the relationship between me and my wife.  Whether or not the government even is willing to acknowledge our marriage is not even really relevant; what is relevant is the legal capabilities that accompany the legal marital status; things such as insurance beneficiaries, child custody, and other important legal matters where the government has absolutely no business meddling in.  In my opinion, there should be no such thing as a legal marital status, PERIOD.  This means that taxation would be not based on marital status, and legal appropriations would be entirely the will of the individual.  On the other hand, churches should be allowed to settle this matter for themselves.  Some already allow it, others may never allow it.  Being a private, non government related institution, they can handle it however they want. 

Now, is gay marriage a slippery slope?  Maybe.  Frankly, I dont care what somebody does with their cat.  Infants and adolescents are already protected by law, as age of consent is a completely different matter entirely, so this does not open the door for a pedophilia movement.  Polygamy?  Why should you or I care?  If these people are consenting adults, then let them live as they please.  The "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, and here is no different.  http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

Now, this so-called "legislating from the bench".  This is another way of saying "the judge ruled against my values".  50 years ago, one might argue that Loving v Virginia was an obvious attempt to "Legislate from the Bench", but now, it seems ridiculous that there was even such a law banning interracial marriages.  In the case of the California law, the role of the judges is not to confirm popular opinion; only to determine if the law is in conflict with the constitution.  It is not an abuse of power, but a misunderstanding of the judicial role by the populace.  The judges have done their part; it is now the part of the people to amend the state constitution if they see fit to. 

The Patriot Act harms civil liberties by removing oversight.  Just because a sitting president can do it, does not mean its right.  What the Patriot has now legalized is:  the government can now monitor all your communications without any kind of approval showing any kind of actual danger to society; they then can imprison you for no reason at all and hold you indefinitely without representation.  Heck, the way the law is now, they can come in and black-bag you and make you disappear.  It is patently unconstitutional, as all men are guaranteed protection against unlawful search and seizure, and guaranteed their day in court. 

Now for Family.  Thats great that you get to believe what you want to believe.   Not everyone buys into the Christian God.  I know I dont.  Now, if you want to say, "In my mind, Bob and Dick are not married because of my beliefs", well you have a right to say that.  Feel free to add to the public discourse your opinion.  That is a big difference from imposing your beliefs onto them in the form of a law that actually forbids them from making a choice that is of two consenting adults.  

Now for the children.  Yes, they are entitled to be cared for.  Yes they are entitled to parents who love them.  Your argument, however, is probably more an arguement against divorce than it is against gay marriage.  Coming up from a broken family, I know that heterosexual marriages are hardly a shining beacon of success  for other non-hetero couples to look up to.  The statistics would seem to back that up.  But then again, that is entirely besides the point. The point is, how much should anyone control any one else's life?