"Just as the nation could not endure half slave and half free but eventually had to go all one way or all the other, we will not be able to get by with a situation in which some couples are married in one state, not married when they move to or travel through the next, and married again when they reach a third.
That sounds about right, Prof. George.
Remind me again, what were we arguing about?
I'm six years late, but I've just read George's WSJ Op-Ed from 2003, and I'm now very curious as to how he justifies his continuing role in this contest? His own accounts (both from his BYU Forum lecture and in that WSJ article) leave me convinced that he knows it's over. In which case, what is it that he's hoping to accomplish at this point through NOM's political fundraising and spending, considering that the political objective is one that he himself describes as a lost cause?