LAW FROM THE CENTER

Given the unintended timing of the filing of our Amicus Brief with President Bush's statement in support of a gay marriage ban, I'm afraid the merits of our argument for the Solomon Amendment may get lost in the uproar over discrimination against homosexuals. Here's where the Centrist stands:

- I support the right of two men or two women to enter a committed relationship together and have that relationship recognized by the law.

- I oppose a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. The political capital required to pass such a measure could better be spent on other issues Republicans should focus on. While I'm not sure that the 14th amendment requires actual marriage rights for same-sex couples, I am sure that a policy that divides people instead of unites them should not be enshrined in our most sacred political document.

- I oppose the military's ban on homosexuals serving openly. The main argument - unit cohesion - is a red herring in my experience. I have served with many men, officers and enlisted, who were gay, some openly, and their service did nothing to ruin unit cohesion. The "gay bashing" at Fort Campbell is an anomaly; most soldiers will respect a competent comrade even if they are gay, and will despise an incompetent one even if they are straight. In my experience, the gay ban is used selectively against soldiers that commanders want out of a unit in the most expeditious fashion, and is ignored for those who are liked by a command.

- My position on the Solomon amendment is not inconsistent with my views on "Don't ask, don't tell." You shouldn't be able to fight homosexual discrimination by conducting equally invidious discrimination against current and former members of the military. There's nothing wrong with protesting the homosexual ban. There is something wrong with not allowing members of the military to take part in the same debate. The free marketplace of ideas requires that EVERYONE, including those with who we disagree, be able to participate.