Why is being opposed to changing the states' legal definition of marriage considered to be "hateful?" Especially when the underlying philosophical and historical stance of those opposed to changing the definition is more complete and sophisticated than the primitive equality argument of supporters?

Keep in mind that as a Neanderthal conservative, I don't think the government should be defining marriage at all, but it does, so I'll continue.

A number of years ago, I suggested that most conservatives knew more about liberalism than liberals knew about conservatism. Conservatives have survived an American education. They have been exposed to newspapers, the major TV networks, Hollywood and automatic assumptions about the nature of society and human relationships, which have been overwhelmingly invented and imposed by liberals. Conservatives have been living in the liberal camp all of their lives.

Given liberals' penchant for the underdog, and their admiration for freethinkers and rebels, you would think they would have great admiration for conservatives.

Yet their reaction to conservatives and conservative thought simply runs down a continuum anchored on one end by superior disdain and on the other by hatred.

They have generally not chosen to be exposed to many conservatives of their own social class and, in many cases, resist interactions that might educate them on conservative principles. Their reaction to the last sentence would typically be, "Well, of course, why would I want to be exposed to all those wacky and hateful people and their ideas?"

I've been amazed to watch professors fall all over each other to be the first and loudest to proclaim that they NEVER listen to Rush Limbaugh, even though 10 percent to 20 percent of Americans agree with him.

Yet the same people would consider anyone who knows nothing about gay rights and, moreover, does not want to know anything about gays, as backward and uninformed even though this subgroup composes only about 2 percent to 5 percent of the population. The higher numbers thrown around by activists and propagandists never hold up in rigorous studies conducted by people with no agenda.

Liberals can say the most vicious and untrue things about conservative thought without ever being aware of what they have done.

This is one of the reasons that Thomas Sowell defined "mean-spirited" not as a simple vicious response, but as disagreeing with a liberal.

Conservatives are not to get uppity, especially if they disagree with something the enlightened consider sacred.

Spoken aloud, such opinions are labeled as "hate speech" and advocates of proper thought, like so many members of the Klan, demand hangings.

Meanwhile, the press burns crosses to put the fear of whatever god is being worshipped this week into the miscreants.

The reaction to the debate on gay marriage can be utilized as exhibit one.

Mere disagreement with changing the definition of marriage is proof of "hate." If you know how these things are manipulated and controlled you will have to smile, but the troops are lining up and either drinking the Kool-Aid or playing along.

Besides, it is such a cheap moral high to classify your parents, grandparents and ancestors as hateful, especially when you can stand in the enlightened present, intelligent and pure, conforming like an automaton to whatever is currently defined as "proper thought."

No, you are just a deep thinker refined by the marvelous and superior morality of our modern society. Yes, it is amazing how deeply modern people think compared to their grandparents and ancestors.

Conformists to current thought would be conformists no matter when they lived. Our ancestors were not stupid and they, compared to us, were highly moral. We are not superior to them. We are wounded people living in the twilight of a dying culture.

Say what you will about rights, slavery and change, but it doesn't apply. Argue that morality is relative and situational, but that just creates an even more dangerous world.

There is great risk in this overreaching arrogance. Those who wish to change the Constitution because it suits their immediate purposes, criminally prosecute previous administrations or impose the will of favored minorities over the majority act as if they are unaware of the lessons of history. It appears that they haven't thought these things through, or that in their isolation they believe they are an exception to the rule that any idea accepted or weapon created can be used against its creators.