OK, that title is utterly ridiculous, as we all know. No one would ever publish that headline, not even the New York Times. Much as Democratic politicians may play the populist card, may campaign against "big business interests," or otherwise make money from those whom their constituents consider the forces of darkness, that's rarely newsworthy. Indeed, when a Democratic politician does something out of character--say, go duck hunting as a photo opportunity--it's not a sign of hypocrisy, but "outreach" to middle America.

But Republicans aren't allowed outreach, at least if you're the Times. Chris rightly takes the paper to task for reaching a new low, reporting on a Republican consultant's gay marriage (congrats to him, by the way, though the marriage happened in December) in a totally non-news event. The article's excitement comes completely from the fact that Mr. Finkelstein has represented some pretty conservative Republicans.

Let's strike a blow for equality here. I'm heterosexual, at least on days that end in "y." Despite that fact, I'm allowed to believe that some political positions are more important than my sexuality. Given the difficulty in enforcing restrictions in sexual behavior (e.g. anyone who really believes there are no sex toys in Alabama is willfully ignorant), I'm quite happy to say that a politician's view of taxes, judicial appointments, or federalism easily trumps whatever disagreements he and I may have on the state's role in my sex life. There's no reason to assume that my homosexual counterparts don't have that same right.

The NYT might have had an interesting article if they'd delved into why a homosexual man might hold conservative beliefs, asking sensible questions and really wishing to find the answer. This piece is no such beauty: instead it's just one more excuse to raise the spectre of the "cracking Republican Party."

Folks, we're a big tent. Not all Republicans agree with one another, but guess what: P. J. O'Rourke wasn't so wrong when, describing a party that was big enough to hold Lloyd Bentsen and Jesse Jackson (let alone someone like Sen. Byrd), he characterized the Democrats as the "Cat/Canary Love Association." Politics is like that.

Perhaps living in the Republican Break-Up Fantasy Land makes NYT editors feel good, but in the meantime Chris is right: it makes the Greying Lady look tacky.