If it is inevitable that civil marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples, I think that inevitability shouldn't be rushed. Why not first solve the practical, easier problems stable gay couples face - partnership benefits, hospital visitation, etc. - through some form of civil contracts?

And if eventually the stability and monogamy of homosexual relationships are so self-evident that it becomes obvious to a wide majority of Americans that gay marriage is a worthwhile next step, we can deal with that. As Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, noted, "Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other."

If, in the meantime, justice delayed equals justice denied to a handful of couples who want marriage now, well, I'm sorry. That's the way life works sometimes. As Burke also said, sometimes we "must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes."

But no one's taking my advice. So, we have the FMA barreling down the tracks. The FMA would ban gay marriage "or the legal incidents thereof" - which many take to mean civil unions as well - in all 50 states for all time.

That may sound like a good idea if you're against gay marriage, civil unions and all the rest. But to me it sounds an awful lot like a replay of Prohibition. I can't tell you what the unforeseeable consequences of such an amendment are because, duh, they're unforeseeable. But what I can predict with almost mathematical certitude is that the FMA will not make this issue go away. Rather, it will more likely serve to radicalize the anti-FMA forces in much the same way Roe vs. Wade radicalized anti-abortion forces.

Historically, the way we cut these knots is by throwing the issue to the lowest, most local level possible. If South Carolina wants to ban alcohol, fine. But don't tell New York they have to, too. This way we get a multiplicity of examples to follow and debate, rather than a monarchal decree from above.

If Massachusetts really wants something called "gay marriage," I may disagree with the decision, but it's their decision (note: So far most Bay State voters are against it). And, while I'd probably be in favor of an amendment codifying the principle of the Defense of Marriage Act - which allows states to refuse to recognize the gay marriages of other states - the FMA goes much further than that.

You can't favor federalism for only good ideas or ideas you like. Experimentation means allowing local communities to make mistakes.

So, I guess I'm against the Federal Marriage Amendment.