Curious

Never sure why columnists and editorial writers, when writing about the debate over gay marriage, often employ an image similar to the one used in today's otherwise fairly reasonable National Post editorial:

Unfortunately, that vote was only partly free: Mr. Martin's Cabinet – a third of his caucus – was whipped into supporting the new law. Since then, traditionalists have claimed, with some credibility, that gay marriage was rammed down Canadians' throats.

(emphasis mine)

Any ideas?




[UPDATE: I should note that though I do think the editorial is surprisingly reasonable for the Post, that doesn't mean I'm in %100 agreement. The notion that "our society arguably has become less libertine" since the legalization of gay marriage is, well, kind of stupid. But again, the gist of this editorial is reasonable enough. Gay marriage is here to stay, hooray. Let's move on.]

[UPDATE II: How did I miss this: "Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois is whipping his caucus. So is the NDP's Jack Layton, as he did in 2005."? Time to install some internet filters on the computers in the Post's newsroom....]