Andrew Sullivan takes issue with the Sunday New York Times story on support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

It's worth recalling that the flag-burning amendment was supported by around 80 percent of the public, and the balanced budget amendment by around 85 percent - and yet both failed.

What he misses here, I think, is this: no one was going to really rally for these issues. It was a matter of sentiment that the public didn't care so strongly about. No Congressman who voted against either Amendment was going to lose their seat as a result or face a primary challenge, or anything else.

In fact- had either Amendment gone to the states, they certainly would have passed.

Sullivan also misses this: it seems to be widely evident that gay marriage, when asked at the beginning of a fight, is much more popular than it is a little while later. Look at the eventual reaction to Civil Unions in ultra-liberal Vermont. Or look at Canada, where support for gay marriage dropped by as much as twenty points in a few months. If it looks like gay marriage is going to be judicially-imposed, it will be hard for the Democrats not to go along with an Amendment.

I think the eventual compromise on the issue will be that there will be an Amendment codifying marriage- but allowing the states to create 'civil unions.' An Amendment which bans all gay unions will not pass- one which simply restricts marriage to a man and a woman will.

After all- not a single major Democratic Presidential candidate can be found who will openly support gay marriage. What happens next May, when MA will probably have to allow gay marriage, people flood into the state to get married, and then file forty-nine Federal lawsuits?

If the Republicans push for the FMA under such conditions, and the Democrats manage to obstruct it, they'll ice a lot of Congressmen and Senators. If they seek to stop ratification: they're in danger of losing State Houses.