Tom Bevan offers one of his typically insightful pieces on the issue of gay marriage:
[A]s John mentioned in this space last week, there is a contradiction in the position of gay marriage advocates I’ve yet to hear an explanation for. If marriage is indeed a “fundamental civil right” on par with the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s, how can one possibly suggest that it be left to the states?
Andrew Sullivan, for example, says on one hand that denying same-sex couples the right to wed is unequivocal bigotry and discrimination, yet on the other hand he wants to allow the states the right to make their own laws.
From a logical standpoint as well as a moral one, how can Sullivan argue that it’s perfectly acceptable for a number of states (at this point I think about 38 have laws banning gay marriage) to have legally sanctioned and in some cases “enshrined” in their state constitutions such blatant bigotry and discrimination? Isn’t this the same flawed logic that allowed racial bigotry to flourish in state laws passed in the South in the first half of the 20th century, a practice that finally resulted in the federal government stepping in and putting a halt to it with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The answer is, “states rights” is the first step. Once half the states have gay marriage and other half don’t, gay marriage activists will run to court, again, and get a liberal judge to force the non-marrying half to begin marrying.
“States rights” is a canard used to hide the real agenda.