Post-Modern Marriage

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?

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

3 Comments

  • Debbie k Marks,SanAntonio TX

    I, Don’t think people understand the seriousness of this matter

    We as of today do not know what causes people to be gay …If its a problem
    in the brain or just plain being a rebel ..maybe it’s not a problem at all
    . …Until we find out what causes gayness “we don’t need to legalize it”

    the reason why young people are for gay rights is because psychologicaly they have a rebeliose nature…we all must relise the truth if 2 men where ment to marry and 2 women where ment to marry
    they would be able to reproduce have children
    “when I say ment i mean psychologicaly spiritualy and biologicaly and scientificaly…99.9% of all animals reproduce with opposite sex…
    what i am trying to say its just not fitting
    in all areas all relms of life and who ever is gay and reading this needs to relise that we should not change some things,And also that they have some sort of a mental emotional or chemical problem in there mind or bodies and it needs to be investigated….if i where the president i would ivest in an research team to pin point the reason for the problem that these people have you have to agree that statisticly you have a problem .compared to all the people who are born a very small percentage is gay..i go with the majority I belive we will have seriose re percussions on our lives if we allow these marriges to go through.All actions have a cociquence especialy this large of a change in our basic human structure of our lives .MARRIAGE …..

  • Gays are screaming “It is discrimination — let’s not write discrimination into the Constitution.” How can gays be discriminated against over something – a law that never applied to them to begin with?

    Marriage is for a man and a woman — period and steeped in that “man and woman” traditional marriage is the hope and beauty of natural procreation; not artificial insemination between lesbian couples, and not surrogacy by women for gay men.

    I live in Boston, and Beacon Hill has become the land of political confusion. What I have seen so far on this whole gay marriage fiasco is that it is felt to be a civil rights issue. Here we have 4 wayward judges that decided to take it upon themselves to write law for the legislature, for which they can and should be impeached. Gays are relying on Massachusetts lawmakers to pass this law because they do not, by their own admittances, want it to go to the people for voting. People are more against this than for it; not only in Massachusetts, but in the majority of the world, and the reason is not only tradition and law, but morality — religion aside!

    Tolerance of the gay lifestyle, however deviant and unnatural most feel it to be, has been thrust forcefully upon people by liberals and special interest groups. People are so fed up! People are sick and tired of everything they feel and think being practically under martial law in this country! People have bitten their tongues for far too long over everything they are not allowed to do, say, think, feel or celebrate for fear of seeming un-politically correct by not doing the popular thing/feeling the popular, politically correct way, thus being considered a racist, bigot, homophobe or mean spirited.

    People have had enough already! If this law should happen to pass and gay marriage is allowed, it is quite possible that people who were once tolerant and accepting of this lifestyle, be it on their own accord, or because they had no choice, could turn on gays and display outright acts of hatred. Passing of this gay marriage law could be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back.

    Marriage is a very, very venerated bond for heterosexuals. To have this union ‘between man and woman’, as it has been since the beginning of time, be granted to gays because they whined and bitched and got their way; thus having marriage lose the meaning people held most dear — this could have dire consequences.

    If gays think that circumstances are bad for them at this point in time; that they have been victimized and discriminated against, wait and see what the future might possibly hold. Gays may be biting off more than they can chew. People can become as un-politically correct as we are currently forced to be politically correct. However far gays think they’ve come in the world in terms of equal rights and acceptance could be offset by a fierce backlash – a revolt, an upheaval of hatred from the straight community – even those who are supposed to act politically correct under “crybaby” left wing laws – people such as landlords, employers, etc.

    People may regress to the days when nasty things were said and feelings were shared outright — and no amount of legislature or law suits (another thing people are fed up with) will stop people from expressing themselves –no more putting up and shutting up! Attitudes could rival the days of Archie Bunker!

    Be careful what you wish for — it may not be what you wanted, and it may not go the way you thought it would.

  • 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.