forcing the contradictions

The question, however, is whether same-sex marriage will be put into the Constitution by court rulings or will be precluded by the democratic deliberation and decision-making of the amendment process. The Constitution will be amended one way or another, either by the people or by their robed masters.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus

I am a traditionalist, and as such am opposed to the state recognition of gay marriage. To some—in particular Andrew Sullivan, in whom I have seen much to admire—that makes me a bigot, no different from those who opposed removing bans against miscegenation in the last century. I believe the analogy to be a false one, and that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would in truth be altering the institution's very nature. But nothing I nor any other conservative can say is likely to alter Sullivan's perception.

Neuhaus is correct: the Constitution will be amended, either by a democratic process as provided for in the document itself, or by judicial fiat.

I submit that those who hope for the latter are abetting the rise of tyranny.

Donald Sensing:

In a calmer time, DOMA [the federal Defense of Marriage Act] would be pretty much the end of it until a same-sex couple sued a state for failing to give full faith and credit to their union licensed in another state. I assume that federal rather than state court would have original jurisdiction because of the interstate character of the issue.

But these are not calm times. This issue became rapidly polarized to its extreme positions because of the scofflaw actions of San Francisco's Mayor Newsom and the provocative judicial overreach of the Mass. supreme court.

In legislative terms, the issue is settled at the federal level. DOMA is still on the books. But when President Bush denounced “activist judges” in his statement today, he was speaking for millions of Americans (we'll see whether a majority) who believe, as I do, that the very nature and character of the judiciary today far surpasses what the country's founders intended or envisioned, and hence traditional means of settling Constitutional questions have been abrogated. What else, they think, can they do but go to the source? […]

A Constitutional amendment won't happen quickly, if it happens at all. Until then, it will be nothing but a backdrop to a culture war I fear has hardly begun. The possibility of a compromise is decreasing rapidly. Both sides are girding to fight for all-or-nothing victories. It won't be pretty.

Stanley Kurtz has demonstrated that some who lobby for gay unions do so under false pretenses, and intend nothing less than the undermining of marriage itself. But there are others—like Sullivan and like many of those who waited their turn in San Francisco this past week—who simply desire an official recognition for their relationships.

It's impossible to ignore the human side of the equation.

I am indeed an unabashed culture warrior. But I had hoped it would not come to this.

MORE. Jonah Goldberg posts a letter from a gay correspondent. The writer makes a valid point; I certainly don't envy the President, who must somehow try to square this circle.