This little editorial from the Washington Post is a perfect specimen of mainstream-media arrogance on the issue of same-sex marriage. A federal judge tosses aside a marriage amendment passed by 70 percent of the voters of Nebraska, and all the Post can do is bemoan the fact that the decision seems to vindicate supporters of a federal marriage amendment. The Post makes no effort to hide its disgust at the idea of defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. A federal amendment is a “noxious proposal” that would “write discrimination” into the constitution. But don’t worry, says the Post, Judge Bataillon’s decision will probably be reversed on appeal. No need to get hysterical about a bad decision (which, by the way, the Post spends much of its editorial defending).

So here’s the real message from the Post: “You Americans, with your noxious bigotry, should pay no attention to this decision (which nullifies your votes on the grounds that they are noxious bigotry.) This decision is simply the action of one isolated and mistaken judge and is bound to be reversed on appeal. (Although our closer look shows that this judge’s opinion’s got a lot of merit.)”

In other words, the Post takes the American people for a bunch of boobs. It isn’t just that all those marriage amendments we keep voting for are noxious bigotry. We’re supposed to take the Post’s word for it that Bataillon’s decision is some kind of fluke. Yet the Post’s own editorial makes it plain that nothing could be further from the truth. Judge Bataillon’s decision embodies the very same view of the gay-marriage issue that the Post itself is pushing.

Bataillon’s only mistake was to move too quickly. Now the rubes might actually figure out what the plan is! Bataillon certainly could be reversed. Taking their cues from the Post on timing, the courts may now want to move more deliberately. Yet it’s equally clear that the courts will eventually follow the Post on substance. There are battalions of Bataillons out there, and one of these days one of them is going to get what he wants from the Supremes.

Why do judges keep making impolitic decisions on this issue? Why do they move so quickly and offer such sweeping verdicts? Why Lawrence? Why Goodridge? Why Nebraska? Every time one of these decisions comes down, thoughtful liberals worry that judges are unnecessarily roiling the political waters, and endangering the long-term prospects of the very reforms liberals support. The mechanism here is not mysterious. Liberal judges accept the Post’s view that traditional marriage is noxious bigotry. In theory, they might like to move against public sentiment more cautiously. Yet when a case actually falls into their laps, judges are loathe to do anything that might make the Post condemn them as noxious bigots. So the same-sex-marriage movement is a victim of its own success.

Even so, liberal control of the mainstream media has huge benefits. The Nebraska decision is a major event. Yet the press is purposely downplaying it–and the Post’s editorial explains why. Pay no attention to those judges behind the curtain! Our game plan is getting just a bit too obvious.