A quick hit on today's Kersten column

Today’s Katherine Kersten column is pretty much what I had in mind pointing out that there is plenty of exaggeration on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Her column continues the confusion of sexual orientation and politics, of the freedom to live in any kind of relationship that one chooses versus the authority of the state to determine what relationships it recognizes.

Busy day, and I’ve written about all this before. So, briefly -- States certainly have the authority to define what they will recognize as marriage. If that is one man and one woman, and that’s what the majority of the people want, then states can do that. However, the larger question is should they?

In a nutshell, it makes no sense for a conservative to marginalize a group of people with basic traditional values that want to honor the commitment of marriage simply because of their sexual orientation and the fact that others are using that sexual orientation to further a political agenda.

Yes, there is a "gay agenda," but it is driven by leftist politics, not sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is merely the means of pushing the politics, much like gender is simply the means for leftist politics masking as "feminism." If conservatives are true to the principle of individualism (and do not sucumb to group identification), then they shouldn't condemn the one because of the actions of the many.

So doesn’t recognizing same-sex marriage put us on the slippery slope to polygamy? No more than we are on it now. The polygamy issue can be raised without or without a debate on same-sex marriage.

Like I said -- busy day. I've addressed Kersten's position before.

UPDATE: King Banaian, as usual, adds some additional insightful comments here.