Federalism and Gay Marriage

Articles

Craig Chamberlain

Federalism and Gay Marriage
Dec 10, 2003

I am about to disagree with many conservative thinkers today. I usually agree with what they have to say, but on this point I don't think they could be more wrong. Specifically I am talking about Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz, David Frum and George Will. Where do I disagree with them? On Gay Marriage. All, in the name of Federalism, opposse a marriage amendment at the same time being against gay "marriage".

To me this has always been intellectually inconsistent. Like democrats who say they wish there were fewer abortions, or say they would never get one themselves, but do nothing to lower the number of abortions and vociferously defend Roe V Wade.

While I believe strongly in federalism and in the tenth amendment I believe this is a case where the federal government must act. This for the sake of national unity, or at the very least consistency.

The federalist argument goes something like this: The tenth amendment guarantees states rights (someone should point out that the government has been ignoring the tenth amendment for a long time now anyway) and if this were solely a states rights issue I might even agree. But this is a national issue.

The rest of the argument goes that gay couples would get married in Massachuttes and not move to states that wouldn't recognize their "marriage". For example a gay couple wouldn't want to live in Wyoming or Texas. Thus they don't need an amendment.

Welcome to the era of lawsuits. Leftists can't win at the ballot box so they win at the judges bench.The judicial oligarchs will impose it on all fifty states. Without a marriage amendment some gay couple will get married and move to a state that refuses to recognize gay marriage. (they might do this not out of a wish to live in such a state merely to force it on all fifty states) If such a case were to go to the supreme court the advocates of gay marriage would most likely win.'

The other part of this argument, mainly supported by Horowitz, a man whos intellect I greatly admire, is that a marriage amendment goes against conservative principles of individual liberty and limited government. I could not disagree more.

Having an amendment stopping gay marriage doesn't outlaw homosexual behavior, to try to do so would be impossible, and foolish. Homosexuals have been around from the beginning and they aren't going anywhere. Stopping gay marriage would not bring back anti sodomy laws. Individual liberty would not be imperiled their lifestyle would not be legislated.They would be living their lifestyle without interference from the law, thus it is no threat to individual liberty.

On the issue of limited government, there is even less effect there.Amending the constitution does not increase the size of the government nor does it increase its power. Conservatism does not hurt itself by stopping gay marriage. Most people oppose it. (66% of Massachuttes citizens are against it)

To have the constitution spell out what marriage is a sad comment on our nation and doesn't speak well for us as a people.Action needs to be taken to see that this decisive issue doesn't go any further.

------------

Email Craig Chamberlain: craig_chamberlain@hotmail.com

Comment on this column in the forum.

Tell a friend about this site!

------------