Many of the moral concepts about homosexuality are rooted in religious beliefs which are not legally within governmental purvue.
I had that impression, too. But I did notice that this article did not lean heavily on religious pronouncements or reproduction biology. It saves itself from being dismissed with, "Well, that's fine, but I don't think you should be imposing your beliefs on others," or "What about the couples that don't have kids, while some gay and lesbian families do have kids in them."
It makes the point of "here's what gay people are asking of YOU when they want you to go along with gay marriage." I think many of the points are potentially refutable, but so far, its the most intelligent and persuasive argument I've seen put forth against gay marriage. It's clear that it does recognize civil union as a way of dealing with the unfairness issue, and it seems that the President is on board with letting states try that, if they wish.
If gay marriage is not going to happen imminently, then a reasonable middle path that resembles a compromise that the mushy middle can accept will be the only alternative. If gay activist groups would accept this, then they will be more successful in getting the whole enchilada in a generation or so. If religious conservatives would acknowledge that gays are not going back in the closet, and that we will always have homosexual people in our society, and would allow them the right to make recognized agreements that allow them to manage their own households, then they stand a reasonable chance of making that arrangement stick for at least a couple of generations.