Herb London continues to perpetuate a myth and he should know better. He writes, “National Review editors contend that homosexual marriages are virtually inevitable so there is little sense in resistance.” Variations of this assertion proliferate in certain corners of conservatism and it’s simply nonsense. I can’t help but get the sense that various commentators continue to insist it is true so they can sound more conservative, courageous and true-believing than the the French-like folks at National Review. That would be fair if it were true, but since even a modicum of research would demonstrate it’s not, it’s very annoying.

London is presumably referring to Ramesh’s cover story on gay marriage which not only did not endorse gay marriage or surrender to its inevitability but rather offered a sober-eyed analysis of the current state of the debate. Ramesh — a senior editor of the magazine — and the magazine in general have come out time and again for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Indeed, no other conservative magazine has dedicated so much space and energy to endorsing the FMA and opposing same-sex marriage.

Much the same can be said for National Review Online. Stan Kurtz is a cottage industry on this issue. David Frum has been fighting with Andrew Sullivan and others on this point for years. Maggie Gallagher, Kathryn Lopez, and pretty much the whole NR gang have written over and over against same-sex marriage.

Then there’s me. Presumably London gets to use the plural “editor” by lumping me and Ramesh together. Well, first of all I am not an editorialist or senior editor for National Review. Second, I remain opposed to gay marriage (though I haven’t thought through the FMA) as a matter of public policy. If possible, I’d allow federalism to solve much of this so long as states were allowed to ban gay marriage too. The place where I am off the reservation is on civil unions. For reasons that I’ve offered many times, I think it’s untenable to deny both marriage and some form of civil union or contract to gays. So, I choose civil unions as a necessary compromise in part to do right by homosexuals and in part because I would like to preserve the integrity of marriage.

Many of those condemning NR for its editorial position because of what I’ve written commit a pas de deux of dishonesty, they not only get my position wrong they then misapply their mistaken view to all of NR. Enough already.