Middle Ground
The choice has been made.

Mr. Kurtz is also a fellow at the Hudson Institute
August 10, 2001 8:55 a.m.

have great respect for the work of the Family Research Council, the Concerned Women for America, and for Robert Knight. Although I am often in sympathy with their views, it is also true that, in important ways, I see the matters of marriage and homosexuality differently than they do. I do not personally view homosexuality as sinful, nor am I even opposed to some of the sexual loosening that has emerged in the wake of the Sixties. I neither deem possible, nor seek, a return to the system of the Fifties. Instead I think we need to find a way to live in the sometimes muddled middle ground between the traditional system and the more extreme expressions of the sixties ethos.

Mr. Knight's position in "No Room For Compromise" is seemingly more consistent than this, as are the positions of, say, gay or feminist radicals who wish to subvert or replace marriage. But I believe that the social basis of the old system has been destroyed, while the utopian visions of the radicals are both flawed and unworkable. So as I see it, we have little choice but to work toward a moderate middle ground.

That does not mean that strong and conservative religious communities should not, or cannot, continue to exist in many parts of America. And under the Federal Marriage Amendment, social conservatives, both religious and secular, have every opportunity to persuade their state legislatures not to grant benefits of any kind to homosexual couples. The Federal Marriage Amendment does not in any way mandate domestic partnership benefits, and such benefits are only a possibility to begin with because the Constitution, not the Federal Marriage Amendment, places such decisions within the discretion of state legislatures.

For Mr. Knight to allege that the Federal Marriage Amendment "allows" state legislatures to enact, say civil unions, makes no more sense than to say that the amendment "allows" state legislatures to enact no-fault divorce. It is not the Federal Marriage Amendment, but our Constitution that allows state legislatures to parcel out benefits and regulate divorce. If this is what troubles Knight, his quarrel is not with the Federal Marriage Amendment, but with the Founders of our nation.

As I argued in "The Right Balance," the Founders did indeed presuppose heterosexual marriage, and our country's unity depends upon holding fast to a single basic definition of marriage. That is why the Federal Marriage Amendment's definition of marriage makes sense. But states have always had authority over the detailed parceling out of benefits, and it is unlikely that even a single state legislature (much less legislatures in three quarters of the states) would ever ratify Knight's proposed version of the amendment, since that would mean deeding away their constitutionally delegated authority over a whole range of family law matters.

It is worth noting that Gary Bauer, the man who established the Family Research Council as a premiere defender of America's families, has joined with such conservative luminaries as Judge Robert Bork, Robert P. George, and Hadley Arkes in supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment. These distinguished leaders consider the Federal Marriage Amendment to be, not only consistent with federalism, but also the only politically achievable solution to this problem. And as our expanding debate on same-sex marriage at National Review Online indicates, those who favor same-sex marriage view the Federal Marriage Amendment with alarm. Why would they do so if it was toothless?

Judge Robert Bork, in his recent call for support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, pointed out that there was once an opportunity to pass a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade and turning the question of abortion back to the states. Purists who demanded an amendment banning abortion outright instead got nothing. In just this way, Mr. Knight's reluctance to face the social and political realities of the same-sex marriage debate risks losing the chance for an amendment of any sort, thereby allowing the courts to impose gay marriage against the will of the American people.

The Alliance for Marriage, sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, has succeeded in forging a broad-based coalition that includes liberal civil rights leaders, secular and moderate social conservatives like myself, and religious people from a wide array of faiths. No campaign to pass a constitutional amendment can succeed without building a broad coalition at the national level. Such an alliance must necessarily extend beyond the bounds of any one religious community or political position. As a practical matter, the Federal Marriage Amendment represents our best chance of gathering together a winning coalition, while there is still time to prevent the courts from taking marriage out of the hands of the people.