I would have liked to ask our professional victim whether he would accept an agreement that I would gladly offer those with his mindset. I”€™ll allow their experiment to go forward by granting everyone the make-believe constitutional right to marry anything that moves. Why should we confine ourselves to same-sex marriage? Let people henceforth be able to marry their pet salamanders or anything else they want to betroth. They should also be able to change their sexual identities whenever it pleases them and engage in cross-dressing, if that’s what turns them on.

In return, those who don”€™t like what’s going on should be allowed to withdraw from the game. They should have the right not to employ or rent rooms to those whom they consider lunatics or perverts. They should be able to live and associate strictly with those holding their beliefs. In fact, they should be allowed to withdraw from this diversitarian experiment and form their own political community within the US. There they would be permitted to live undisturbed within their comfort zone.

I would propose a similar modus vivendi with immigration. In the decentralized America of the future, those who favor increased immigration from all over the solar system, such as The Wall Street Journal‘s editorialists, would be able to impose their will in heavily urbanized areas. There they could allow the rest of the world to join them with minimal restrictions, perhaps stipulating that incoming residents must agree to some boilerplate language about human rights or gender equality. Undoubtedly things could get tense as the rival advocates of propositional nationhood battled over what formula the steadily arriving newcomers would have to recite. It is also likely that the experiment would eventually go awry as more and more huddled masses landed on these shores. That would be poetic justice as long as the self-segregated and autonomous “€œxenophobes”€ would not be required to deal with the overflowing crowds. Let those who want more diversity have it without inflicting their tastes on the unwilling.

This is not entirely a spoof. Listening to Pat respond to the multicultural zealot, I was again made aware that certain cultural and moral divides cannot be crossed. It may be futile to hope that multiculturalists will accept the need for cultural cohesion. So why bother? Wouldn”€™t it be easier to agree to disagree and perhaps even split up without coercion? But why should the social left accept my compromise? Right now they”€™re getting what they want”€”the power to jerk others around without the inconvenience of negotiating.