Eva Young linked me to this thoughtful post on gay marriage. It is a long post, but the author, Craig Westover, makes a number of good points. I will single out just two and encourage you to read the whole thing.
First, he articulates a truly conservative case for gay marriage, by suggesting an incremental approach, starting with “some kind of civil union or child protection measures for gay families” and seeing what happens.
Second, he makes an excellent cause against a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman while addressing the legitimate concern that many conservatives have of judicial activism:
If the concern were really activist courts, all that is necessary is an amendment that says state courts shall exercise no jurisdiction over the decisions of the legislature regarding the gender requirements of marriage — or words to that effect. If that were the language, that would leave the legislature and the people free to decide in the future if the state wants to have gay marriage, but take the courts out of it. That’s what conservatives should support, not an exclusionary amendment.
These are only two of the many excellent points he makes. Since Mr. Westover put a good deal of thought in his piece, I repeat, READ THE WHOLE THING!!