Kmiec on same-sex marriage

Like Rob says, Doug Kmiec's recent post at Slate is quite ambiguous with respect to his position on same-sex marriage and the law.  Certainly, in the past, he has been a staunch opponent of moves to constitutionalize a right to same-sex marriage, and a supporter of an amendment to the Constitution to prevent such constitutionalization.  Consider, for example, this back-and-forth, with Larry Tribe, on the NewsHour a few years ago.  Kmiec said (among other things):

I respectfully disagree with my friend Professor Tribe. I think he's taken a definite position that he favors gay marriage and he's therefore sees it as an expansion of right. Others of us would see it as a disregard of created reality, of in fact the fact that states have preferred marriage, have given it a position of prominence because it does some very important things. It supplies new members to our community and it supplies a household that is the most important educator for our community. In this sense it's not a denial of right; it is an affirmation of what is important.

And, as he writes in this earlier Slate post, discussing the California decision, he wrote a brief in the case contending that "marriage is properly reserved to a man and a woman." 

Doug is someone who does his best, I think, to find points of agreement, and to blunt, to the extent possible, points of disagreement.  Maybe that's what was going on in the exchange with Dale Carpenter (who is also, in my experience, an admirably charitable discussant).