The latest New York Times Magazine has a great cover story on how young gay guys view marriage — basically, how gay folks under 30 are different from their older counterparts when it comes to tying the knot. The author profiles a number of younger gay couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is now legal. (Interestingly, the couples are all white, something the author acknowledges, but doesn't explore.)

What's it all about in a nutshell? Basically, a lot of young gay men no longer see themselves as all that different from their straight counterparts, so of course they want to get married (and most who get married want to have kids, too). But at the same time, having been excluded from full participation in society for so long (and being, well, gay), some of these folks feel they can "pick and choose" the aspects of heterosexual marriage they like while ignoring those they don't (and others were pretty traditional).

In other words, it will pretty much drive Bill Bennett, Maggie Gallagher, and every other outspoken critic of same-sex marriage berserk. How dare gay people sully the noble institution of marriage with their egalitarian, sometimes non-traditional ways!

From left to right: Maggie Gallagher, Andrew Sullivan, Bill Bennett

But there's more to it than that. It seems to me the article pretty much proves exactly what Andrew Sullivan has been arguing for over fifteen years now: that same-sex marriage is a normalizing force on the gay community, and, perhaps, a positive, liberalizing force on the straight community, too. (Sullivan is a disingenuous lunatic with a disastrous record as a pundit during the Clinton and Bush years, but he was right about same-sex marriage looooong before anyone else was even talking about it, so credit must go where credit is due.)

In other words, the article will probably drive the gay radicals even crazier than it does Bill and Maggie. Sell outs! Assimilationists!

Hmmm, something to piss off the irrational fringe on both the right-wing and the gay left? Now that's a good article!

Here's an intriguing headline: Monday night's ratings for The Daily Show were down 15 percent from its last original episode while The Colbert Report's ratings were up by 11 percent. Surprising enough as it is, but the story gets even more interesting when you look at the ratings for both shows before the strike: in October, 30% of The Daily Show viewers didn't stick around for The Colbert Report.

That's something I'm having a hard time understanding. I tend to think of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report as one show interrupted by a bonus theme song. I even have the DVR programmed to record an extra half-hour of The Daily Show so that both shows are recorded together. (That way I don't have to worry about the trade-off between Jon and Stephen getting interrupted by the DVR interface.) Apparently, nearly a third of Daily Show viewers don't feel the same way.

Adding to my puzzlement, both my partner and I are bigger fans of Colbert with its more satirical character, not to mention Colbert's ability to deliver very sharp remarks to a guest while phrasing it like a compliment. The format allows the Report to have a stronger voice. And Stephen's fake pundit has been nabbing press with fun little stunts like the metaphor-off with Sean Penn, his anti-Hungarian comments and his presidential run. I'm surprised that so many people can tune in for The Daily Show and not stick around for Stephen's antics afterwards.

Then again, could our preference for Colbert be partly based in his gay humor and for his over the top and - dare I say it - campy persona? Maybe we enjoy the Report a little more because of a gay sensibility? (It's worth noting that Colbert's first guest after a 10-week absence was outspoken gay political writer Andrew Sullivan.)

That has me wondering about how AfterElton.com readers get their nightly dose of fake news. Do you watch both shows or do you tune in for just Jon or Stephen? Then again, maybe you like the unintended comedy of Bill O'Reilly. The hilarity of lines like "Was this a negligee situation?" can be hard to beat for some people...

(Thanks to the No Fact Zone for the pointer.)