Here's Hoping My Children Have Left Feet and Right Feet
A combination of talking to one friend about online dating and another friend about the Daily Kos led me to Act for Love, an online dating site that 'lets you "take action" while "getting action."' To let the site's description speak for itself:
When you use Act For Love, you have access to a network of over 1,000,000 personals via our network of Spring Street partners (including very cool folks like Salon, The Onion, the Village Voice, etc.). So yes, your "one in a million" match is out there. And if you want to search just for fellow activists, you can do that too -- just check "Search only profiles from Act For Love" under "Advanced Search."
Now, by 'fellow activists,' I think we can assume that Act for Love means 'left wing activists.' Certainly, Spring Street used to provide personals for 'cool folks' like The Economist, and I'm sure they're in cahoots with other rightish websites as well, but they aren't mentioned. Furthermore, a look at the list of projects supported isn't exactly screaming bipartisanship.
I'm sure you're asking, "So what? There's a dating site for young and sexually active liberals. This, Tony, shouldn't be worth your time. Go read Con Law."
Well, yes, I should. But that last statement--"if you want to search just for fellow activists"--troubles me. Try as I might, I can't see limiting myself in a choice of bed partner, lover, wife, life-partner or whatever by political affiliation. And I sort of wonder about people who do.
Maybe going to a wedding recently has got me thinking about things more carefully, but I can't think of a single reason to check such a box. I can say without hesitation that I've dated across the political divide more times than I've stayed on my own turf, and it's generally been emotionally and intellectually satisfying. Not only that, but I think it hones tolerance in one of the few ways that's really important: it forces you to divide your feelings about a person from your feelings about their ideals.
There's a good reason that I rarely insult Democrats--either as a whole, or specific Democratic political candidates--by calling them stupid, pathetic, or anything of the sort. I can't do it without also implying that I've loved people too stupid to vote for such a candidate. Since I've shared beds with some hard-core lefties, such accusations that the left has more than its share of morons suggests I have a strong taste for idiots as bed partners. I'll always be happy to attack their positions--especially the ones that are stupid. But it's perfectly possible for smart men and women to hold stupid opinions, as anybody who's kept a diary for ten years and glances back at it occasionally can tell you. Show me a Republican married to a Democrat and I'll show you someone who's learned the fine art of diplomacy. 
Anyway, Reg State reading still awaits tonight and I have other things to consider. But if any of my readers decide to click through to Act for Love and sample the world of online-dating, please don't check that box. After all, even after Lawrence v. Texas, the one place that consenting couples of any sexuality are not allowed to share is the voting booth.
UPDATE: The Class Maledictorian takes issue with my point by making it: "I venture to say that most of the people on Act for Love don't just think that Republicans are wrong, but that they are bad: a morally deluded or intentionally wicked force for evil." She concludes with: "If a very sweet and intelligent person holds morally repugnant beliefs, I think they should be held accountable for those beliefs instead of given a pass because they are "nice." Of course, not everyone ties goodness to acceptance of proper philosophical positions as I do."
But as flattering as it is to belong to the 'evil' party, a dogmatic view that a right-wing activist must be not only incorrect but morally suspect is rather what I object to. Furthermore, let's be clear what we're talking about here: people who believe that they should limit their dating pool on an online dating service to people who affirmatively support their political positions. By clicking that box, one is likely eliminating anyone who isn't a left wing activist, even if they're politically neutral.  This would seem to take those checking that box outside the realm of the tolerant and into the realm of the dogmatic: those for whom politics has become a religion, and a particularly fundamentalist one at that.
: Where diplomacy is defined as 'the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way as they look forward to the trip.'
: Actually, they're also excluding any left-wing activists who have signed up through The Onion, Nerve.com, etc., which given the left-wing tilt of that area of the internet seems a bad dating strategy altogether...