Andrew Sullivan has been playing increasingly tendentious word games with the labels he applies to supporters and opponents of the FMA. Yesterday’s version was particularly amusing. He said that the FMA may widen the split between “Santorum theocrats and old-school conservatives.” Old-school conservatives? Since when are “old-school conservatives” big supporters of gay marriage and judicial activism? Maybe there is a split between religious conservatives and “moderates,” or “libertarians,” or “progressive conservatives,” or whatever you want to call them. But saying it is old-school conservatives (Phyllis Schlafly? Trent Lott?) who oppose the FMA is an absurdly stilted attempt by Andrew to make the traditional social right seem as if it is some sort of radical innovation, when it has been a key part of modern conservativism for decades. Why doesn’t Andrew stop playing games and say that in his mind this battle is not between well-intentioned people with differing moral visions, but between good and evil–unless he is uncomfortable admitting the extent to which his own advocacy on this issue depends on a kind of moral abolutism and judgmentalism? Andrew recently said that he was reassured to learn that there “are some decent people left in the Republican leadership,” i.e., opponents of the FMA. So supporters are therefore indecent. Who knew? Andrew Sullivan is the new puritan.