“Stirring up a gay-marriage panic serves the interests of activists who support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But decisions made in a panic are seldom wise. With its federalist structure, the United States is uniquely positioned to settle gay marriage the right way: at the state level.”
From The Supreme Court Ruled for Privacy—Not for Gay Marriage. It’s worth a read.
Incidentally, Andrew Sullivan, too, is floating a balloon about a similar idea — in this case, a hypothetical compromise gay marriage amendment that would leave the decision up to states and not impose one state’s recognition of gay marriage on other states.
hmmm, sounds like the Missouri Compromise of 1820. but more seriously, how can you have gay marriges recognized in some parts of the country, and not in others? what about when couples move? when they D-I-V-O-R-C-E (which is already an issue with Vermont’s Civil Unions – folks can get hitched there with a minimum of residnecy required, but alas, when they need to dissolve the union, terribly complicated!)
Sullivan’s “balloon” reads panicky: oh, my God, he seems just to be realizing, the Republican Party in the main is anti-gay. What a shock! So he retreats into the same dumb states-rights strategies as have been tried and which have been shown to fail the test of social justice time after time. Why should imaginary lines drawn for usually arbitrary reasons decades or centuries ago have anything to do with how we as a country ensure human rights? Because the “sacred” (Sullivan’s word) text of the Constitution says so, that’s why. Baloney!
(I also wonder how his proposal could be squared with the principles of Loving v. Virginia.)
Have you heard about the Catholic Church’s recent attack on gay marriage? Being myself a Catholic, I can’t help but notice that the Church’s credibility on sexuality-related moral issus has taken quite a beating (ie gay marriage between 2 loving and consenting adults is a heinous sin but covering up priests who victimize young boys – and denying it- is quite OK). Just wanted to let you know who else is interested in creating a gay-marriage panic.
PS – I seem to note that common opinion (particularly in minority populations) tends to be against gay marriage as well. What do you make of that?
PPS – I really like your blog! :-) I think I’m hooked…