A COMPROMISE ON GAY MARRIAGE
A gay conservative Andrew Sullivan reader sent in an interesting letter a little while back (can't find it now, sorry) in which he said that he didn't support gay marriage because marriage is only for the protection of children. This principle, it seems to me, represents the best available compromise between those who insist on a "civil right" to gay marriage and the traditionalist majority.

I would turn this principle into a policy as follows. There are two categories of recognized one-to-one relationships: civil unions and marriages. A "civil union" may be between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. A state of "marriage" is created when children are born to a couple (straight, of course, by biological necessity) who are in a "civil union."

Of course, we don't know, when a man and a woman get married, whether they'll have kids or not. So it would be odd and gratuitous to overturn tradition and strip straight newlyweds of the "marriage" label, and then insert another legal ceremony of marriage if and when pregnancy occurs. We can say, however, that civil unions between gays and childless "marriages" between straights are legally equivalent, and marriages with children are distinct. We can then drop the charges of discrimination, beyond what "discrimination" is fixed by nature (that only men and women can have children together.)

I realize I haven't addressed the adoption issue. And I'm not sure this gets to the essence of marriage, but for policy purposes it's good enough for me. It makes sense. Why should people commit their whole lives to each other? I know what I want now, but I don't know what I will want 10 years from now. Why tie my hands? It makes sense if you have a child, and two parents will create the best environment for that child to grow up in. Otherwise, why? This definition also harmonizes well, at least arguably, with tradition, unlike gay marriage, which clearly rejects it. What do you say, Tom? Satisfied?