Spin and definitions

The lede in this news story seems odd:

In a triple setback for conservatives, South Dakotans rejected a law that would have banned virtually all abortions, Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage and Missouri approved a measure backing stem cell research.

Considering the lede in this story:

Voters in seven US states rejected gay wedlock by limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman in one of the few bright spots for conservative Republicans in otherwise disappointing elections on Tuesday.

Though they take completely opposite perspectives, both stories emphasize banning gay marriage as a “conservative” and “Republican” issue. In light of last night’s election results, this is ridiculous. A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in my state, Tennessee, was overwhelmingly approved. Something like 81% in favor of the amendment. This clearly wasn’t a “Republican” issue. Democrats obviously don’t want gay marriage either.

What this means for gay marriage here, I don’t know. I would assume a movement to legalize civil unions is in the offing since the amendment mainly took issue with the definition of the word “marriage”:

Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee.

But definitions of words change. I wish people wouldn’t use “access” as a verb, but what can you do? I’m not going to push for a constitutional amendment.