At least it is according to the totally nonbiased Pulitzer Prize committee. The Pulitzer committee evidently has a penchant for illiterate compositions packed with run-on sentences, verbs and nouns that don't agree, multiple prepositions, legal errors and cloudy thoughts. It is wholly coincidental that the gist of these turgid, gaseous editorials was to support gay marriage. Any wrestling of differences has to occur among the people who disagree. The moral opinions themselves can be wrestled with in private, but not the differences.
Convictions can give humans confidence or humans can have confidence in their convictions.
There cannot be confidence of convictions. If the legislature has already avoided a protracted conflict, it has also avoided the consequences of a protracted conflict. If the court had required gay marriages to be made legal by a certain date or ruled that homosexuals were entitled to one-half of the rights of heterosexuals, those would be benchmarks. Mr. Moats' dazzling writing style is matched only by his impressive legal acumen. The Full Faith and Credit Clause gives Congress express authority to determine the effect to be given state laws in other states.