From time to time, the journalist Andrew Sullivan makes the argument that the establishment of gay marriage, for which he is a prominent polemicist, is the only way of preventing a proliferation of marriage-lite alternatives such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.

* From time to time, the journalist Andrew Sullivan makes the argument that the establishment of gay marriage, for which he is a prominent polemicist, is the only way of preventing a proliferation of marriage-lite alternatives such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. In a recent squib, he wrote that National Review is so hostile to gay marriage that we, "bizarrely," favor the creation of "new and more elaborate marriage-lite options for gays and straights." That would be bizarre, if true. Let us clarify our position. We favor a constitutional amendment as the only means to prevent federal and state judges from imposing gay marriage or marriage-lite without a vote of the people. We discussed one proposed amendment that would also have prohibited state legislatures from creating gay marriage or, indeed, granting any benefits to gay couples as such. Under this proposal, a legislature could decide that any two roommates would, for example, have the power to co-sign loans for each ...