Ramesh Ponnuru, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry (buy his book), and John Derbyshire (buy his book too) are four of my favorite writers and they all work for National Review (if only I was so lucky).
The other day I discussed my views on the Federal Marriage Amendment and tried to guess how Ramesh Ponnuru would respond. Well, he did respond himself. You can view his comments attached to my post below. But, here they are pasted:
Here’s some of what I would say, Erick: The Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as heterosexual for purposes of federal law, and reserved to states the right not to recognize other states’ homosexual marriages. Putting those policies into the Constitution would not stop us from getting judicially-imposed gay marriage in all 50 states in the country, courtesy of the state judiciaries (or the federal judiciary acting on state laws).
But let’s consider, instead, an amendment that prohibited state or federal courts from meddling with marriage but left it to state legislatures to make their own decisions regarding gay marriage, civil unions, and the like. There would be practical difficulties with that policy, as you mention: marriages that would be valid in one state and not in others. Still, I think that would be better than a lot of the alternatives. Opponents of gay marriage, from their perspective, would not have given up much, since in no state is there now, or is there likely to be in the near future, such strong public demand for gay marriage that it would be legislatively enacted.
I’ve just gotten back from a meeting and have to go to another one involving a pool table and beer, so I’ll have to give some consideration to this later tonight. But, they deserve pointing out because how cool is it that Ramesh Ponnuru checked out my blog!