Regular readers know that I’m still coming to grips with whether or not to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Yeah, I believe marriage should be between a man and woman. I also believe that it’s crap (don’t y’all love my good arguments} that the homosexual lobby can run to court to get a law created and bypass the legislative body. But, should Congress prohibit homosexual marriage altogether? That, I’m still torn on.
Here’s a thought I’d like your thoughts on. What about, as Jonah Goldberg suggested, just putting the Defense of Marriage Act in the Constitution? So, states that want gay marriage can have it, states that don’t want it don’t have to have it, and add to it that only the legislatures of the several states can say that the union of two people can be traditional or same sex – courts can’t be involved.
That would be a very federalist idea it seems to me. Courts could not impose the liberal agenda, States that want it can have it, and States that don’t want it don’t have to do it and, I think as part of the application goes, those that don’t go along also don’t have to recognize the marriage rights of people married in pro-gay marriage States.
I can foresee a host of problems with this, but is it not better to keep this a state issue and let the States decide? Wouldn’t this also be easier to pass than the FMA?
Now, of course, I need to ask myself WWRS – What Would Ramesh (Ponnuru) Say. He would probably say that passing the FMA would be democratic – it could only pass if 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States thought it was a good idea. He would probably also say that letting the States decide the marriage issue individually would seriously complicate things nationally. (1) Gay couples moving to a non-gay marriage state wouldn’t have their marriage recognized, but what about their estate divisions under state law and under federal law. What about child adoption. What about a host of other issues. He’d probably be right.
I guess what FMA supporters must remind themselves and others is that passing a constitutional amendment is the most democratic and deliberate thing we do. The Congress considers it and then the several states consider it. A huge majority must be behind it. So, if it passes, it would be overwhelmingly supported.
I still don’t know. Any thoughts?