It's Only Guessing When the Enemy Does It

I've been taking a break from Andrew Sullivan commentary. There's just so much that can be said about the way in which he responds, insults, and plays the race card in reaction to Stanley Kurtz's essay on Scandinavian marriage that I couldn't possibly address it well with the limited time in my schedule. But one point, I just can't pass up. Here's Sullivan in the post at the first link above:

There are no marriage rights for gays in the countries he cites. There are, instead, what are called "registered partnerships." ... Then Kurtz tries to argue that there is a causation effect between registered partnerships for gays and the decline of traditional marriage. He proves nothing. There are so many independent variables - from secularism to contraception to cultural gender roles and on and on - that such a conclusion is intellectually preposterous. ... These kinds of unsubstantiated correlations, slippery links and simple associations would be laughed out of a freshman social science class. Did no one edit this?

And here's Sullivan introducing the "Same-Sex Marriage in History" section of his Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con (1997):

And today in Denmark and Sweden different compromises have been made [for homosexual relationships] that affect the meaning of marriage itself.

ADDENDUM:
Upon further reading, there's more that's worth noting. Sullivan on his blog:

... the entire premise of the piece - that marriage for gays is legal in Norway, Denmark and Sweden - is factually untrue. There are no marriage rights for gays in the countries he cites. There are, instead, what are called "registered partnerships."

From a summary essay about Denmark's Act of Registration of Partnership by Deborah Henson on page 42 of Sullivan's Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con:

This legislation is the first of its kind to grant homosexual couples the legal status comparable to married couples — with the exception of adoption and custody rights. The new law provides for "registered partnerships" which give each partner the same rights to inheritance, tax deductions, social service entitlements as married partners have, in addition to mandating similar obligations as well: tax liabilities and partner support upon separation. ...

... the Act also allows registered partners to be included whenever Danish law refers to "marriage" or "spouse." If the terms in a given statute are "husband" or "wife," however, registered partners are not included in coverage.

As I understand, from Kurtz, Sweden and Norway had instituted or expanded their offerings similarly by the mid-'90s to, as he characterizes it, "de facto gay marriage." It bears mention that precisely this sort of direct legal comparison to marriage would be barred by the Federal Marriage Amendment.