Backlash Explainer - Capping a week when the U.S. Senate held a hearing on the need to protect the sacred institution of marriage from the perversions of homosexual relationships, the NYTimes looks at why the pro-liberty Lawrence ruling may have given a tactical advantage to the homophobic social conservatives. (Always interesting to see a topic intensely debated within a narrow issue community break into the major media.)

Oddly, I haven't come across a lot of coverage of the hearings themselves, which were naturally stacked with anti-gay witnesses. All I noticed was Alan Simpson's nice little op-ed piece in the Post giving us some GOP love, and a rejoinder from James Taranto. (I'm sure Drew and the NRO have been holding their own side debates, but I've not read them to see.)

For my part, I continue to hope that the anti-gay-marriage side is still too divided over what to do to accomplish anything. They're all wrapped up over issues of Federalism and whether this rises to a constitutional emergency. I've decided I have a fall-back position at least: if there HAS to be an amendment, we better pray it's not the one introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave that currently enjoys 75 co-sponors. Understand that this version is a nuclear bomb against gays. It doesn't just bar us from "marriage" but also "the legal incidents thereof." In other words, kiss your civil unions and domestic partnerships goodbye. (Yes, you too, California.) Under the circumstances, an amendment that merely barred courts from enforcing gay marriages outside of their home state is at least bearable.

Can't wait for that Massachusetts ruling, eh?