In the midst of this national debate about homosexual "marriage," I'd like to take a break from the cynical accusations of bigotry to make one simple point. Why are we letting these social radicals who want to change the very definition of a term that has been an institution for thousands of years pretend that their opponents are the extremists? Has the English language been perverted to the point that it is now "extreme" to be opposed to a massive, sudden, poorly-thought-out, and judicially-imposed change in one of the fundamental bedrocks underlying Western civil society? These radicals want to change what marriage means -- fine. Let them prove to us why that's a good idea. The burden of proof is on them.
And one more thing -- who came up with the asinine liberal talking point that we shouldn't debate a Constitutional amendment on the subject because to do so would be "divisive"? Was this one of Terry McAuliffe's brain farts? Here 3 percent of the population wants to redefine an important social institution, they want to do it through the courts, they want to do it in spite of the fact that a majority of Americans don't want them to do it, and they don't want a debate to take place on the subject. To the likes of Andrew Sullivan and company, the logic goes something like this: (1) this is the most important civil rights issue of our day, and all Americans should join together in a show of force against the reactionary bigots who won't let Ben and Jerry exchange vows with one another; and (2) this is a divisive issue that should not be a part of our national debate.