Being Aware of the Goal Posts

A National Review editorial offers an important reminder for supporters of traditional marriage:

If the amendment must be scaled back, however, the first and second parts of it [preserving the word "marriage" and barring benefits premised on non-marital sexual relationships] are each more expendable than the third [blocking decisive court action on the matter]. It would be better, that is, to leave state legislatures free to create civil unions, any type of civil union, and even gay marriage at their own discretion — while banning judges from imposing either. It is not as though the public at large is clamoring for gay marriage in any state. If the public comes to do so of its own accord, and not under the tutelage of judges, then traditional marriage will be dead, and past the power of constitutions to save. The present danger is that the courts will push the country in a dangerous direction in which it would not otherwise go. It is that danger that a constitutional amendment should address.

The uniqueness of marriage for the type of relationship that it covers and the word itself are important to protect. Of overriding importance, however, is ensuring that the public is able to protect them. If the people of the United States choose to institute gay marriage within our democratic, representative, and federalist system, then those who do not must focus their efforts elsewhere than the law.