For Balance: From the political to the social, I also owe NR a rip on the gay marriage debate. Here's the usually sharp Stan Kurtz's latest broadside. He hammers Al and Tipper's Joined at the Heart over the story of a well-to-do gay couple adopting the child of their housekeeper, who cannot afford the child:

The Gores find this story inspiring. Yet it's possible to respect and empathize with the Logans [the gay couple], while still doubting that their story is a positive development. While the Bush administration is sponsoring programs that try to get poor women, like the Logan's nanny, to wait until marriage to have children, the Gores are not attracted to traditionalist solutions. Instead, the Gores seem to be saying, "Have the child on your own. If it's tough to raise him, you can always give him to a wealthy gay couple for adoption."

Obviously this is not what the Gores are saying, and Kurtz is playing dumb for the sake of argument to say so. (Plus, if it were a straight couple, Kurtz would no doubt be delighted at the alternative to abortion.) Now, what the Gores are saying is that there are plenty of loving gay couples out there who would take wonderful care of kids who would be otherwise neglected, abused, or raised in rotton circumstances. Gay civil unions would help make that a reality by taking away some of the legal garbage that traditional families (and traditional adoptive families) never have to worry about.