I can't read the article b/c of paywall, but I do wonder how they controlled for legislation vs. the effects of media, subsequent social pressure and acclimatio

I can't read the article b/c of paywall, but I do wonder how they controlled for legislation vs. the effects of media, subsequent social pressure and acclimation, the higher likelihood of legislation being passed in a state already favorably disposed toward SSM, etc. Also, what is the definition of "anti-gay bias"? My guess is that any critical attitude would be classified as such which is an ideological tactic i.e. normalization through the repeated conflation of opposition with bias or even hatred. In any case, the idea that the government can play a role in normalizing certain behaviors and attitudes is not surprising. With history as my witness, all kinds of things, good and bad, have been normalized partly by government backing. In any case, whether SSM makes sense or should be recognized is not a matter of purported benefits, but a matter of principle. It doesn't take much imagination to recall evil deeds that may result in some desired effect. What matters is whether SSM should in itself be recognized. Note the use of the word recognition. Marriage is not a manufactured social construct (pace postmodern), but a natural institution that governments only have the freedom to recognize. Neither societies nor governments can arbitrarily manufacture institutions. They can pretend to do so, just as they can pass immoral "laws", but neither such ersatz laws nor such ersatz institutions have any legitimacy and thus may and must be freely rejected by citizens (coercion has forced citizens to simulate assent and submission to such false laws and institutions, of course).