Religion & Law

Rob asks, with respect to the Rauch / Blankenhorn proposal on SSM, "what's not to like?"  Over at Prawfsblawg, there are some interesting responses in the "comments" box.  And, at Public Discourse, Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgas weigh in. and suggest an alternative:

The revisionists would agree to oppose the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus ensuring that federal law retains the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and states retain the right to preserve that definition in their law. In return, traditionalists would agree to support federal civil unions offering most or all marital benefits. But, as Princeton?s Robert P. George once proposed for New Jersey civil unions, unions recognized by the federal government would be available to any two adults who commit to sharing domestic responsibilities, whether or not their relationship is sexual. Available only to people otherwise ineligible to marry each other (say, because of consanguinity), these unions would neither introduce a rival ?marriage-lite? option nor treat same-sex unions as marriages. Their purpose would be to protect adult domestic partners who have pledged themselves to a mutually binding relationship of care. What (if anything) goes on in the bedroom would have nothing to do with these unions? goals or, thus, eligibility requirements.

Thoughts?  Rob?