Michael Barone has an piece at National Review Online supporting ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "marriage." Back in the day, would NR have published an article supporting, say, socialism? Of course not. But it now publishes articles in favor of the most radical social innovation in history. This is not an entirely new development. Back in 2003, I wrote an entry, "NR waves the white flag at ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage," concerning a cover article at NR by editor Ramesh Ponnuru. He protested my characterization, but it was correct.

In that same entry I wrote:

    In the face of the seemingly unstoppable advance of the cultural left and the abasement of mainstream conservatives before it, there is one thing that traditionalists must remember above all else: never to let go of the truth, even if falsehood seems to be taking over the whole world. That is the opposite of the emerging philosophy at National Review. NR famously began its existence by standing athwart history yelling stop. Now its philosophy is to consult popular opinion on the most fundamental questions of human existence, and adjust to it as quickly and painlessly as possible.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020298.html

I think it was Belloc who said (and I loosely paraphrase) that the job of the liberals is to change everything from good to bad and from bad to worse; the job of conservatives is to prevent any changes made by liberals from being corrected.

It's the double talk that's Jєωιѕн.