That's good writing.
At least it is according to the totally nonbiased Pulitzer Prize committee. The author of that paragraph, David Moats, editorial-page editor of the Rutland (Vt.) Herald, was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his "evenhanded and influential series of editorials commenting on the divisive issues arising from civil unions for same-sex couples."
The Pulitzer committee evidently has a penchant for illiterate compositions packed with run-on sentences, verbs and nouns that don't agree, multiple prepositions, legal errors and cloudy thoughts. It is wholly coincidental that the gist of these turgid, gaseous editorials was to support gay marriage.
That "spiritual domain" number was one of the sentences highlighted by The New York Times as an example of Mr. Moats' "plain-spoken" editorials. Not to be a stickler, but differences in morality -- differences that "exist today" and "will continue to exist" -- cannot be "wrestled with" in private. Any wrestling of differences has to occur among the people who disagree. The moral opinions themselves can be wrestled with in private, but not the differences.
Masking the illiteracy of his sentences with excess verbiage, Mr. Moats writes: "What the House required was not more finely calibrated gauges of public opinion, but the power to weigh the opinion it heard against the requirements of the law."
So, the House required the power to weigh opinions? What kind of legislature does Vermont have if it doesn't already have the power to weigh opinions? Doesn't Mr. Moats mean the House needed to weigh opinions, and not that it "required" the "power" to weigh opinions?
In another felicitous turn of phrase, Mr. Moats describes the gay marriage bill as "extending fair treatment to neighbors who have had to conduct their personal lives in a shadow of discrimination." If gays -- or neighbors conducting personal lives -- are only in the shadow of discrimination, whose discrimination is casting the shadow? Who's really being discriminated against up there?