The treatment Carrie Prejean received from the MSM and left-of-center blogs was yet another manifestation of their attitude toward a conversation on gay marriage. They don’t want one. They just want states to recognize gay marriage, insisting anyone who opposes this goal deserves to be demonized.
The issue with Carrie Prejean was not where someone stands on gay marriage, but where he stands on civil discourse.
I have long believed that a serious, civil conversation on the issue would serve us well. It would help gay people understand the meaning and see the benefits of the ancient and honorable institution. It would allow straight people to see gay people defending long-term committed relationships, helping correct certain societal prejudices about people like us.
It is troubling that all too many at the forefront of the gay marriage movement are so unwilling to talk about the institution that occupies so much of their waking life. Surely, if they understood the history of the institution, they would recognize why people like Miss Prejean define it as they do. And they would develop arguments to respond to her concerns.
So, I put the question to you, my readers, why are many advocates of gay marriage so quick to insult the opponents of this social change and so reluctant to articulate it benefits?