I think you hit it. Pehaps the perceived threat of gay marriage is that it is a threat to their conception of the male role - they are the god-given king of the castle, and others in the house submit: how could any man chose to submit (submissive is more appropriate term than recessive, I was just using that for a subtle genetic analogy)? Certainly they are just as upset about feminism (aka rush's feminazis) as a threat to their "traditional" role, when in fact it is just another person.
People can only be upset about things that affect them, and thus it is curious to me the way some people get so bent out of shape by the behind-closed-doors behavior of others that they only know about by reputation (whether it is gay life-style or blue dresses and cigars).
As far as archie goes, my first marriage (lasted 5 years, parted friends) the father-in-law was archie, mil was edith, and I was the long-haired son-in-law .... I never really saw much humor in it then (for some reason?). but yes, as a portrayal of "traditional roles" it shows the dominant\submissive pattern.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}