Justice & The Good Life :  it is my opinion that your movement would benefit from a "philosophy".  Therefore, consider this view from Sandel's Justice.  He defines justice, "it means maximizing utility or welfare--the greatest happiness for the greatest number . . .it means respecting freedom of choice--actual choices people make in a free market . . .or hypothetical choices people would make in an original position of equality . . .or justice involves cultivating virtue and reasoning about the common good."

He goes on to say "A just society can't be achieved simply by maximizing utility or by securing freedom of choice. To achieve a just society we have to reason together about the meaning of the good life, and to create a public culture hospitable to the disagreements that will inevitably arise.

It is tempting to seek a principle or procedure that could justify, ( once and for all ), whatever distribution of income or power or opportunity resulted from it.  Such a principle, if we could find it, would enable us to avoid the tumult and contention that arguments about the good life invariably arouse.

But these arguments are impossible to avoid. Justice is inescapably judgmental. Whether we're arguing about financial bailouts or Purple Hearts . . . .questions of justice are bound up with competing notions of honor and virtue, pride and recognition. Justice is not only about the right way to distribute things. It is also about the right way to value things." (Sandel pp. 260-261)

Thus, the challenge in Sandal's opinion and mine is to imagine a politics that takes moral and spiritual questions seriously, but brings them to bear on broad economic and civic concerns, not only on sex and abortion.