Shuster on Gay Marriage

NBC Correspondent David Shuster is mourning a loss for “true conservatism.” That would be all well and good, but he is upset over the victory of traditional marriage. Not the best way to mourn a loss for true conservatism.

As I said the other day, a lot of folks in the media accept as truisms things that those of us in Red States do not. David believes that the destruction of traditional marriage would be good for marriage — bringing homosexuals into the “married” lifestyle would strengthen it. David uses the canard of biblical slavery to allude to bigotted red staters who might “want to return to the days of slavery, devout observance of the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning people.”

I’m sure he is a terrific guy. He is one of my favorite reporters. But, his statement is a bit ridiculous.

In fact, the support for traditional marriage — approved in 11 states on November 2, 2004, is a victory for true conservatism. The measures pre-empted liberal judges from imposing their will by giving the people the right to decide the issue.

That David does not like the forces of conservatism defending traditional marriage is all well and good. But, he should not try to make the case that it is a loss for conservatism.

What won on Tuesday was the slowing down of a process that activists have tried to accelerate without much public debate. There was a backlash against it. David and Andrew Sullivan and a host of others will have to accept that our nation tends to lash out at those who want to rapidly progress society, damn the consequences. Rightly or wrongly, red staters (and more than a few blue staters) slowed that progress.

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

1 Comment

  • I disagree, Shuster is not that good. I followed David Shuster’s reporting for “Hardball” throughout the election and I found it to be consistently biased.

    He has a way of injecting criticism of the Republicans into almost every single piece he files for Chris Matthews.