What's remarkable about Ross Douhat's New York Times editorial against gay marriage is that it is devoid of any compelling fact. First, he cites the decay in marriage — i.e., less people are getting married and divorces are up. Then, he admits that correlation isn't causation, i.e., he admits that the decay in marriage probably has more to do with the economy than the rise of gay marriages. Then, in a fit of desparation, he begs liberals, now clearly on the road to victory, to concede his argument that gay marriage ruins the institution of marriage:
A more honest, less triumphalist case for gay marriage would be willing to concede that, yes, there might be some social costs to redefining marriage. It would simply argue that those costs are too diffuse and hard to quantify to outweigh the immediate benefits of recognizing gay couples’ love and commitment.
Such honesty would make social liberals more magnanimous in what looks increasingly like victory, and less likely to hound and harass religious institutions that still want to elevate and defend the older marital ideal.
Um…. no, Rick. There really aren't any social costs to "redefining marriage" other than an increasingly thin minority of people think it is icky. If there were social costs, you would have named one actually attributable to gay marriage.