Go check out David Hogberg’s take on the Register’s “enlightened” view of gay marriage. He’s spot on in his analysis of the Register’s position.
Here's a taste of the original Register Editorial:
Someday, future generations of Americans will look back at the debate over gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about. History will put today's debates in perspective the way society now has perspective on past subjects of raging cultural warfare, such as whether women should be allowed to vote.
I wonder what the always benevolent, huge-brained Register Editorial Board members believe that future generations will think about the current debates over the people's right to keep and bear arms or… to the right keep the lion’s share of the money that they earn away from the IRS, or for that matter… the current dangerous practice of legislation by the judiciary?
Then there's this gem:
The main argument against letting women vote was that it would undermine the traditional family. Sound familiar?
Okay... well... not to rain on your parade, but it HAS!!! You can argue that this is a good or a bad thing, but to deny that the growing political power of women has not had a profound effect on the structure of the traditional family (at least the family that has been "traditional" from the industrial revolution...) is just loony.
I especially love the conclusion of the Register's piece:
In a democracy, with inherent principles of equality for all people, that equality eventually will be achieved. The courts and public opinion, however haltingly, are moving in that direction. Many lawmakers in Iowa and in Congress are not. They stand against broadening the concept of equality under the law.
They stand on the wrong side of history.
Look, I for one would have no problem with gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry or group marriage (or call it civil union, if the word marriage in this context raises your hackles). I want people to have the freedom to form the personal/economic associations of their choice. No life partner should be kept from seeing their dying mate in the hospital because of the objections of homophobic relatives. But, expanding the institution of marriage or even promoting the concept of civil union is problematic as long as the government is in the lifestyle-blessing and subsidy business.
I can't help but believe that the Register editorialists are talking about equality of outcome in the last quote. If so, they are sadly mistaken. When government gets into the business of making gay folks happy in their marriage (and believe me, it will...) there will blossom a whole new bouquet of unique needs for married gays that will spawn a bevy of new and.... shall we say, interesting social programs. Man... I can just imagine the public service announcements... whee! But, I won't go there...
As long as the government pursues social engineering through the tax code and enforces wealth redistribution under the guise of special or “victim” status, gay marriage (and other similar liberal social issues that I support) will have to take second chair.
Responsibility for self and loved ones must come first. Without responsibility, rights accorded by the government are simply license. This goes for singles, marrieds, straights, gays, transgendered and even bloggers.