Marc Ambinder says the Libertarian presidential
candidate and former Republican congressman supports it. Here is
the quote:
Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex
marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be
a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of
a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be
required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously
proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the
Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental
principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of
Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to
determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be
recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a
definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The
decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of
states' powers should work.
It's true that the Defense of Marriage Act, even if
constitutionalized or protected from judicial review by
jurisdiction-stripping legislation, is compatible with same-sex
marriage in California or Massachusetts. It's also true that it
would prevent these two states from imposing their redefinition of
marriage on other states. But the weakness of DOMA from a social
conservative perspective, which I acknowledge even though I support
this approach, is that it does nothing to prevent the judicial
imposition of same-sex marriage by state courts.
The elected legislatures in California and Massachusetts did not
create same-sex marriage. The voters in those states did not
approve same-sex marriage. In fact, in California, they voted for
the opposite. In Massachusetts, the voters have repeatedly been
denied the opportunity to weigh in on this subject. In both states,
the courts, by narrow 4 to 3 decisions, altered a fundamental
social institution. Fred Thompson once suggested a constitutional
amendment specifically preventing the judicial imposition of
same-sex marriage at all levels of government, while leaving the
door open to a legislature allowing it. I'm not sure that such a
policy is workable or that an amendment like that could be passed,
but I do understand the rationale behind it. Federalism is good,
but judge-made law is not necessarily federalism.
topics:
Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Unions
