Pigs can and will fly if four members of the SJC say so

The editors of National Review write on the court's imposition of homosexual marriage on Massachusetts:

If you agree with the Massachusetts ruling — if you think that it was rightly reasoned as well as rightly decided — you cannot even be a moderate supporter of gay marriage who believes that intelligent people of good will may disagree. Opponents of gay marriage are irrational bigots, equivalent to the people who opposed interracial marriage in bygone days. The court declares that there is no rational basis for defining marriage in a way that renders same-sex couples ineligible. Thus the traditional marriage law cannot survive even if the court subjects it to the lowest level of scrutiny it can apply. The court repeatedly likens its decision to the Supreme Court's invalidation of bans on interracial marriage. It sees no difference between the cases.

Jeff Jacoby writes:

In the SJC's brave new world of gender-neutral marriage, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will no longer communicate to its citizens that the central purpose of marriage is to bind men and women exclusively to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior is apt to produce. It will communicate instead that marriage was created to gratify grown-ups by reinforcing their committed romantic relationships. To be sure, a loving relationship is ideal in any marriage. But that isn't why every society in history has defined marriage as an institution for linking the sexes.

The redefinition of marriage will not end with same-sex weddings. In explaining its decision, the court says: "Without the right to marry -- or more properly, the right to choose to marry -- one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship."

But if that is true for committed gay and lesbian unions, it is just as true for every other committed but nontraditional union. Why shouldn't a man and two women, deeply in love and yearning to live as one, be permitted to marry? Or two family members -- of the same sex or not -- whose romantic love for each other is deep and lasting? If the opposite-sex limitation must yield to "the right to choose to marry," by what rational argument can the only-two-spouses or no-close-relatives limitations be sustained?

SJC Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Brattle Street champion of elevated progressive thought, new patron saint of social engineering by judicial fiat, and the product of the South African anti-apartheid movement who wrote the majority opinion in Goodridge likening opponents of same-sex marriage to segregationists, is the embodiment of the New England liberal establishment elite – darling of the Boston Globe, wife of a prominent retired New York Times columnist, and college commencement speaker du jour (here and here and here and here). And she was appointed by Republicans.

Meantime, the celebratory PR by the Globe continues apace. The coverage has been bad enough on the war and politics, and I long ago stopped even looking at the editorial pages, but this latest example of outright partisan campaigning in the news pages of the Globe has got me to the subscription-cancellation phase, a big step because I love to get a newspaper in the morning. I ask you readers: Any suggestions for daily journalism alternatives?