When it comes to gay marriage, it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

On the one hand, social conservatives who for years have been lamenting the federalization of the abortion debate, maintaining the hot social issue should have been left to the states, are now all for federalizing marriage in order to establish a national prohibition against same-sex nuptials - in much the same way their ancestors amended the Constitution to prohibit alcohol.

And we all know how THAT turned out.

On the other hand - the left one, that is - we're finding born-again states' righters in the personages of John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, et al. Would that their politically convenient new-found support for states' rights extend beyond the issue of marriage? Fat chance.

But it's the right that's driving this debate, so any reasonable compromise solution is going to have to come out of the right. In order to do that, though, one first needs to recognize that there are two polar opposite ends within the conservative movement, as well.

On one end you'll find conservatives such as columnist Andrew Sullivan who outright favor gay marriage and nothing less than gay marriage. On the other end you have folks such as Gary Bauer who oppose even the ability of states to recognize civil unions, let alone gay marriages.

Let's stipulate that those two extremes aren't likely to find any common ground any time soon. So what's needed is a common-ground position which the rational, center-right coalition - that is, the rest of us - can embrace.

And that will mean focusing not so much on defining marriage as addressing judicial activism as a whole and preserving the core conservative principle of states' rights.

Which brings me to The Federalist.

The Federalist is an online publication which is decidedly social conservative in nature, but with a strong bias toward the Constitution.

They are unabashedly opposed to gay marriage and have actively opposed the "homosexual agenda" in their publication for a long time. Their social conservative bona fides are genuine, well-established and unimpeachable.

So when THEY say the Musgrave federal marriage amendment is the WRONG way to go, conservatives who support it ought to sit up and take note.

"In the end, this proposed marriage amendment does little more than bandage a lesion on a body consumed with cancer," editorialized The Federalist recently. "In addition, it lends a false sense of security. If the issue -- as President Bush presented in no uncertain terms -- is the imminent threat of judicial activism (and indeed it is), then the only constitutional amendment we should be considering is one that addresses JUDICIAL ACTIVISM."

Hoo-hah! Praise the Lord and pass the peas!

But the Federalist is far from alone in seeing the bigger picture in this debate.

"The key flaw is that Mr. Bush's (marriage) amendment - like the failed prayer amendment of two decades ago - doesn't address the core problem, which is that an unelected judiciary is running roughshod over the plain meaning of the Constitution, substituting its views on socio-political issues for those of the framers and the majority of the American people," writes conservative columnist Jack Kelly. "In the unlikely event that the marriage amendment were successful, judicial overreach would be blocked in this one area. But the fundamental problem would persist."

Now, if you're on a religious jihad and just want to stick it to gays...then stick with the anti-gay Musgrave amendment. But if you're a true constitutional conservative who recognizes that the problem isn't just judicial activism in the marriage debate, but judicial activism PERIOD, then stick with the Federalist and Kelly.

Of course, some conservatives are intent on specifically addressing the marriage issue. If so, they might at least consider the Taranto Amendment, offered by "Best of the Web's" James Taranto, as a compromise:

"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require any state or the federal government to recognize any marriage except between a man and a woman." In other words, protect states' rights without establishing a national one-size-fits-all ban on same-sex marriage.

Of course, even Taranto's marriage-specific language won't please the Sullivans or the Bauers at the far edges of the conservative movement, but it's certainly reasonable common ground for the rest of us in the rational middle.