Jonah, a couple of comments on your G-File today. First, radical gays are no longer opposed to gay marriage. They favor it. That’s because they see it as a way to undermine marriage. They are right. Second, as I’ve argued at length, gay marriage in a state by state patchwork will never hold. If you’re convinced that the battle against gay marriage is lost (I am not at all convinced of this) then you ought to be even more convinced that a state by state patchwork won’t hold. The uproar will be tremendous and the courts will not allow it. I’ve argued this in detail many times, but will have much more on it after Massachusetts. Finally, I’m not sure you realize that the Federal Marriage Amendment already allows for the kind of compromise you seek. The Federal Marriage Amendment defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But it leaves up to the states the question of civil unions, benefits packages, etc. Conservatives who oppose all such benefits will be able to fight at the state level to block them. But those such as yourself who favor some sort of civil unions or benefits package compromise will be able to fight for that too. So while a patchwork of gay marriage will never hold up, a patchwork of benefits short of marriage will. We already have it, in Vermont, even if it doesn’t transfer. But since marriage is a universally recognized form of union, once even a single state has gay marriage, the political and legal pressures for national recognition will become massive. The only resolutions possible will be national gay marriage or FMA. But even under FMA, you could still support a compromise. So as I see it, you ought to be supporting FMA.