Did I say too much? Perhaps. But the National Review editorial was a summation of so much that is wrong on the right. Instead of a conservatism that seeks to expand freedom and opportunity and responsibility for all people, we have a conservatism that views some people as expendable, as creatures whose health and well-being are simply not "important governmental goals."
Instead of a conservatism that values the family and all its members, we have a conservatism that seeks to remove and stigmatize key members of families and ensure that they will never have access to the same rights as their brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers.
Remember: civil marriage for gay couples is not some kind of liberal special right. It requires no concession from anyone else; it requires no individual recognition from anyone who disapproves; it coerces no one; it taxes no one; it spends nothing; it takes not an iota from the rights and dignity of heterosexual marriages, which gave birth to gay people and give many of us our sense of morality and duty and civility. If the right is concerned about religious freedom, please reach out to those of us who favor civil equality and free speech and help protect both. But no, this is not what they are interested in, preferring to construct ads in which actors pretend to be people allegedly persecuted by gays for being Christians. Really, this is pure animus at this point - a decision to define a political movement by the people it excludes and the families it despises.
The next generation sees this most clearly, although plenty of fair-minded older folk see the cruelty and obtuseness involved here. What we have seen on the right since their devastating and deserved loss last November is a worsening of their bitterness, a calcification of their ideas, a poisoning of their discourse.
May they enjoy the fruits of their anger; and may the rest of us be saved from its logical conclusion.