While normally I would consider suspect the ability of any editorialist from the L.A. Times to have any sort of accurate read on conservatives or conservatism, in this case I think the writer is on to something.
Anecdotally, in my own circle of conservative/libertarian friends, we've never opposed the idea of gay marriage. We've been opposed to bad law and the use of judges rulings to make law by fiat. But gays and lesbians should by all means have all the legal rights of heterosexual couples. Myself and a couple of more libertarian sorts have the opinion that to extend the logic of "getting the government out of our lives and bedrooms" that the government shouldn't even be in the business of issuing marriage licenses at all. Let the government issue civil unions for all couples, and let "marriage" be handled by whatever religious institution wishes to support it.
On the other hand, this may be a response at higher circles to the fact that several countries are making laws to legalize gay marriages (Portugal, for example, recently did so). And it would be wise not to open the door for diplomatic incidents if, say, a legal gay couple from another country were not considered married here and one partner had a medical problem and suddenly the other were not allowed visitation rights because they're technically (in the US) considered not married. This is just speculation on my part though. (But I think it's a decent guess.)
Anecdotally, in my own circle of conservative/libertarian friends, we've never opposed the idea of gay marriage. We've been opposed to bad law and the use of judges rulings to make law by fiat. But gays and lesbians should by all means have all the legal rights of heterosexual couples. Myself and a couple of more libertarian sorts have the opinion that to extend the logic of "getting the government out of our lives and bedrooms" that the government shouldn't even be in the business of issuing marriage licenses at all. Let the government issue civil unions for all couples, and let "marriage" be handled by whatever religious institution wishes to support it.
On the other hand, this may be a response at higher circles to the fact that several countries are making laws to legalize gay marriages (Portugal, for example, recently did so). And it would be wise not to open the door for diplomatic incidents if, say, a legal gay couple from another country were not considered married here and one partner had a medical problem and suddenly the other were not allowed visitation rights because they're technically (in the US) considered not married. This is just speculation on my part though. (But I think it's a decent guess.)