Yesterday’s allusion to me in Daniel Okrent’s critique of liberal bias at the New York Times is certainly the most satisfying press attention I’ve ever gotten. Who cares if I wasn’t mentioned by name. To be cited in the Times as proof of bias at the Times is an ultimate honor. My arguments about the effects of gay marriage on Scandinavia and The Netherlands have been out there for about six months. In that time, there have been radio ads quoting me, and attack articles in The New Republic and Slate. I’ve testified on this issue before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee. A second hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution featured feuding over my argument. (This was followed by a pair of dueling letters to the subcommittee from me and Barney Frank.) Two weeks ago, during debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Scandinavia-Netherlands argument was put forward by a number of senators from the floor. Yet, to my knowledge, not a word about the dispute over gay marriage in Europe has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the weekly news magazines, or on any of the networks. Given the salience of this issue in the gay marriage debate-particularly the recent senate floor debate-that has to be counted as a serious reportorial omission. And certainly none of the big outlets has invited me to do an opinion piece. NPR has been the great exception here. They have allowed me to make my case, and I am grateful for that. At the height of the controversies in Boston and San Francisco, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Boston Globe also permitted me to do Op-Eds. But Okrent is right. The gay marriage issue is one of the defining debates of our day. You would think a serious argument about the effect of gay unions on Europe deserved coverage-and fair coverage-by major outlets. Yet big media has frozen this argument out.