@Bob: No, of course it's not an either-or thing. But how exactly one "advances" a cultural argument is escaping me. More gay-friendly TV shows and movies? Yeah, those have helped make gay culture part of the mainstream in a big way (although I think there's also a minstrel-show aspect to some of them, like Queer Eye). And I endorse people being publicly out in whatever sense.

But when E.D. writes that "there is still a great deal of work to be done on the cultural front before a legal case can be won," I have to disagree, or at least say that suggests that our legal system is in bad shape indeed. Again, although there are practical concerns to observe, we are not supposed to make (or not make) our laws based on how we feel; pure objectivity is impossible, but we're supposed to make an honest effort to hew to that ideal. We're not supposed to say, "Well, all of the arguments against same-sex marriage as a legal institution fall short, but the people making those arguments feel very strongly about the issue, so gay people who want to get married have to work harder at making them feel comfortable first, and then they have a legal case."

And, y'know, at what point do we say we've advanced the cultural argument far enough along? I mean, as a first step, it's been taken. It's been taken for many years now and is in the process of still being taken. The cultural argument is going to keep advancing until same-sex marriage is legalized and for a long time thereafter. So again, when E.D. says, "I think the first step needs to be a less legalistic, more culturally based approach," I say, "It's happened," and then I add that the only way to test whether or not the cultural argument has been made strongly enough is to take it to the courts.

Now, in the case of Prop 8, based on what I read, it looks like same-sex-marriage proponents did a pretty bad job of making the cultural argument, saying essentially "We're going to get this whether you like it or not" rather than "Hey, we just want to be treated like full-fledged humans." And that may well have made all the difference. So, yes, a well-articulated cultural argument is essential to getting and keeping same-sex marriage rights—I'm certainly not arguing against that—but the only way to test the effectiveness of that cultural argument is through the legal system.

Anyway, we're on the same side here! But can you see what I'm saying?

Yeah, sorry, but I'm still not buying it. I have not yet encountered an argument against same-sex marriage as a legal institution that holds any water. And while I appreciate that certain parties have to be appeased to make legal changes a reality, I don't think it's fair to say to the gay community, "Well, although there is no rational case to be made for not recognizing your marriages legally, there's still a great deal of work you have to do on the cultural front."

I mean, no, in practice we don't always adhere perfectly to the Enlightenment-inspired ideals the country was founded on. But we should try to. And that does, to my mind, mean that the people opposing gay marriage have to present an objective, nonreligious argument that makes some sense.* And if they can't, it's absurd—typical, but absurd—to demand that the burden of more work be put on the folks they're trying to stop from getting married.

*If I have missed one of these somewhere, please send a link.

@E.D.: Ah, but why should the writers be any different from their viewers and, like, everyone else? (I mean, I know why they ought to; but they're not exempt from the epidemic speeding-up and loss of patience our culture is going through.)

I don't think I'm going to suddenly articulate it in a comment at 3 a.m., but it has seemed to me for a while that there's something else behind the sort of across-the-board suffering so many people cite in storytelling of recent years. Like, it's harder to put together a good story than it used to be for, uh, reasons that have to do not just with the media of production (better special effects to distract us, the suits' demand for faster delivery of the product, etc.) but also with our cultural psyche, if you will.

As a person grows up, they demand more complex stories, moving from fairy tales to Harry Potter to Samuel Delany's Dhalgren or what-have-you. And we see this culturally, too—we've gone from Donna Reed to The Brady Bunch to Arrested Development. So it doesn't seem unfeasible to me that we might have reached a point where a large number of us—nowhere near a majority, but a large number—want more complexity from our stories than many storytellers can provide, in the sense of their inherent ability and in the sense of their practical ability to deliver the content to us.

I also think there are just certain shifts that have made some long-reliable forms much less so. I mean, cell phones have rendered a lot of thrillers simply unworkable. But anyway, I'm just ruminating.

Yeah, thanks for saying this, Freddie. I enjoyed The Dark Knight, but I turned off my brain for it and reflexively/intentionally opted not to examine the story as a whole for inconsistencies—because I knew they'd be there. I think there are still plenty of things that make it worthwhile, and definitely entertaining, but critics of all stripes seemed to be overly taken with the fact that the first "serious" superhero film was being made. And of course, Heath Ledger's death muddied the waters of the conversation further. (That's a good point about his performance not being acting per se—I had never thought about it that way.)