While I appreciate Mike’s glowing and stirring words in my defense, I’m afraid I can’t agree with all of them. I am not a believer in the unity of goodness. A net gain for one is not of necessity a net gain for all. I think it is entirely plausible and in many aspects probable that gay marriage rights will have a negative impact on an already shakey institution. I also believe, for example, that feminism and the birth control pill may have increased the personal freedom of women, that doesn’t mean those gains did not come with serious social costs. Good developments have downsides and bad developments have upsides. And every development has unintended consequences.

As for free speech and the first amendment, this is something Mike and I have gone toe to toe about in the Corner before. Mike seems to suggest that the first amendment will — or does — make criticism of homosexuality cost-free. But the first amendment has absolutely nothing to do with 95% of the threats to free speech. Whether you thought it was fair or not, Trent Lott lost his job as Majority Leader because he spoke his opinions. Professors lose tenure fights over speaking their opinion. If the gay rights crowd had its way, Rick Santorum would have lost his job simply for exercising his first amendment rights. Careers are ruined or damaged every day because of the practical consequences of free speech. It really doesn’t matter what you’re “entitled” to.

Again, I appreciate Mike’s support, but he seems to assume that I’m happy about all of this. I’m not. I’m deeply ambivalent at best. I have real sympathy for gays trying to carve out as normal and decent a life as they can, and I have real reverence for the insitution of marriage and sincere concerns for what will happen to it and the culture over time if current trends continue. I do wish I could share Mike’s enthusiasm. (BTW, I postponed the DMV until the missus gets back with Cosmo).