Our own Jonathan
Rauch scores with an important Wall Street Journal op-ed today,
"Saying
No to 'I Do'." He writes:
Gay couples and their children (more than a fourth of households headed by same-sex couples have kids, according to the 2000 census) need the legal protections and the caregiving tools - not, mostly, "benefits" - that marriage uniquely provides. Gay individuals, coupled or not, need the prospect of marriage, with its sustaining promise of a destination for love and of a stable home in a welcoming community. In 13 states the dream of marriage has, for gay Americans, receded far over the horizon.
So, what is to be done? Rauch continues:
This year may be remembered as the time when civil unions established themselves as the compromise of choice. For an indicator, watch whether there is an outcry if state courts narrow the scope of the new amendments to allow civil unions and other partner programs. My guess is that few people will fuss.
One reason is the long-term trajectory of public opinion. The fact that 60% of voters support some legal provision for same-sex unions represents a sea-change. Still more significant are the issue's demographics. Americans of middle age or older overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage, which they view as a contradiction, if not an abomination. Among people under 30, the situation is reversed....
Rauch concludes, "I am dismayed by the [state] amendments'
passage, but I can't complain about the process. Nov. 2 showed that
our federalist system is working exactly as it should, and it made
the case for federal intervention weaker than ever."
--Stephen H. Miller