On a national level, the issue still cuts against liberalism — but less so with every passing day. By pushing gay-rights debates off until later in his presidency, Obama is almost certainly making them easier to win.
I agree with this, and I am suprised that Andrew Sullivan--who frequently and correctly notes that Obama believes in the long game, the long-term strategy--is expecting everything to be done now. I do think that Obama should have ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell during the Honeymoon Phase, though I suspect that the delay has had more to do with placating the military establishment than with public opinion, which overwhelmingly supports the move.
I had something of a problem with this, though:
Thus gay marriage opponents’ persistent disadvantage. They can argue from tradition, custom and Christianity — as Obama himself does, albeit with dubious sincerity, to explain why he backs civil unions but not full-fledged marriage. They can note the perils of formally severing the link between marriage and childbearing in a society where far too many children are born outside of wedlock as it is. But supporters of gay marriage are the only ones making an argument from personal liberty — the freedom to marry, the right to marry — and that has made all the difference.
I'll skip the arguments equal justice for everyone, separation of church and state, and the hollowness of the traditional arguments against gay marriage. I've made them all before. Here's my question: is Ross making an argument against adoption here? I know he's strongly pro-life, and presumably he agrees with the presumably believes that women shouldn't procure abortions, but rather they should put their children up for adoption instead. Adoption, though, seems a way of separating the link between marriage and childbearing, both for the donors and the recipients.
Now, obviously, there is a coherent argument to be made here. One can say that adoption is superior to abortion, but inferior to a child staying in a male-female household. Fair enough. I don't even disagree with that, but this is the reason why Douthat's social system doesn't really work: people are going to have sex, and they're mostly not going to want to have 13 kids. (Not that there's anything wrong with big families, but they're not in vogue at the moment.) This means that there are going to be some abortions and some adoptions, naturally. Douthat would prefer more adoptions, presumably. But his argument doesn't really cut to the quick of the case for gay marriage--his argument doesn't address gay adoption, for example. Gay people aren't going to contribute to the numbers of children being born out of wedlock, they're going to detract from the children waiting to be adopted, which is otherwise cherished by Douthat. The column doesn't even address the arguments for gay marriage--I believe he is opposed, but he doesn't really give those of us who disagree much to think about. Plus, he doesn't address the sterile couples argument--in this case, childbearing isn't the mitigating factor. Why is that? I don't know if Ross is holding back here, but his argument here is sort of a weak punch. Douthat's columns so far have shown some insight and have had some interesting ideas in them, but I don't think he's quite grown into his columnist role yet. He does show some great promise, though.
