Inevitably, in the debate on gay marriage, the charge of hatred will be leveled against those who defend the heterosexual tradition of marriage. There seems to be a feeling among liberals that any institution that maintains an exclusive membership policy is somehow exhibiting animosity towards those excluded. I suspect that this “feeling” is grounded more in spin than in fact. Boys are excluded from being members of the girls softball team in every state of the Union (yes, even California). Something tells me that the girls hold no feelings of animosity toward the boys being excluded from the team.     We often hear the rigid statutes of marriage being railed against by the media and its’ leftist allies. Why, then, would liberals be so intent on the homosexual community gaining access to a tradition so “confining”, so “archaic” and so “out of touch” with modern times? It’s certainly not because they admire marriage. Hollywood has made that abundantly clear. It’s not for legal status. Civil unions have already established that (and they’re so hip, cool and modern, too). So why the fixation with the heterosexual tradition of marriage? If an institution loses its’ exclusitivity, it then loses its’ societal status. It can no longer demand adherence to its’ own standards because it is no longer unique. Liberals want marriage to blend in, not stand alone. Heterosexuals provide for the greatest need a society has; regeneration. Marriage defines the parameters by which regeneration functions properly. Marriage in its’ essence is forward looking.