Updated
DougJ finds an amusingly facile MSM mash note (MSMash note?) to an anti-marriage type. Evidently, the cause is all about history and tradition. None of that nasty bigotry. One might wonder why it is that the nonbigoted side believes that being gay is a sin and a hellworthy one at that, but this is evidently not a question that was asked.
As someone who has enormous respect for both history and tradition, I tend to find arguments saying that either one is sufficient reason to deny someone rights is going to be wrong. History and tradition are invaluable parts of peoples' individual and group identities, but if this is the crux of your argument, then you have no argument. Arguments on civil rights need to rest on balancing the rights of the minority with the rights of the majority--in the case of gay marriage, we seem to be talking about the right of people to enter into marriage against the right of people not to suffer the psychic stress of knowing people whose conduct they disapprove of are getting married. I don't think that's a sufficient reason to ban something in a free country, myself.
But I do think that, if a mainstream news outlet simply believes that challenges to history and tradition ought to be turned back on principle rather than on their merits, I will join them to be the first to bow to worship Queen Elizabeth when she rides through Washington, D.C., as our once and future monarch. At least we'll know the music to our new (old) national anthem. What rubbish our national dialogue has become.
