The flurry of comments on the gay marriage amendment discussion on Flashpoint included several requests that I keep my opinions to myself. My first reaction is, "...and deprive the citizenry of my wisdom and unerring judgment? Never!"  On further consideration, I realize that any expression of bias in my role as a moderator is fair game for dissection. So let's pull out the scalpel.

Occasionally,  I will assume the role of "devil's advocate".  In those interviews, my questions are usually predicated with a qualifier such as, "What do you say to those who call you a complete moron?" Or, "a cynic might suggest waterboarding would be too good for you".     That sentence construction is supposed to absolve me of any accusations of bias or conflict of interest by reassuring the viewers and the guest that I have no beliefs or convictions of my own and am able only to parrot the beliefs and convictions of others.

In the recent Flashpoint discussion of same-sex marriage, I dispensed with these rhetorical precautions for several reasons.  Some ideas are so wrong-headed and so unnecessary, they don't require a devil's advocate. Changing the state constitution to enshrine a prejudice against gay people is one of those ideas.  As far as I've been able to discern, the argument in favor of restricting the rights of gay and lesbian people is always rooted in religious conviction. Religious conviction, according to my reading of the Constitution, is not supposed to drive public policy.  This is a case, I'll admit,  where I find it hard to appreciate both sides of the issue. And in such a case, I think it's best to lay my cards on the table.

I'd also add that the rules of the game for Flashpoint vary slightly from the nightly newscast. While presenting ABC Action News at 6:00 and 11:00, I hew closely to a "just the facts" approach.   Flashpoint, like other Sunday morning news shows,  is a place where I can add context and perspective to the news- and there is no separating perspective from opinion.