I agree with Ron Garret that tables are a better fit in most cases, even though they do have their own drawbacks that I'm not denying.
I don't buy the argument that tables somehow imply semantics that contradict their use in layouting. Tables have no semantics without a formal system that lends them semantics (like the relational model).
I'm not aware that the W3C or anyone else defined the formal meaning of tables, and since HTML is a UI technology I don't see why "table" should not be interpreted as a form of laying out content in rows and columns.
"Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables."
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
From that RFC:
SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
What would you suggest is better suited to layouts than CSS?