BARR ON FMA: Maggie responds
Hmm, I guess we all have rules Gabriel. I believe in the rule that, to make a marriage you need a husband and a wife, you believe that if its a state court that is engaged in judicial tyranny only state remedies are appropriate.
I think a strictly federalist FMA would prevent ANY court from redefining marriage in this basic way, but leave the decision up to state legislatures. The problem with this is that state courts interpret laws passed by state legislatures. If courts can find a right to gay marriage in the constitution drafted by John Adams in Massachussetts, they can find it anywhere.
But of course I also disagree with the thesis that marriage, at this basic level of definition, is a state matter. If marriage really is a social institution, and not just a private life style choice, it needs a certain shared public understanding of what it is, what it does, and why we have laws about it. Regulations about theft vary from state to state but the basic idea of property does not.
Both Elizabeth Marquardt and Alan Hawkins, below, touch on these concerns
posted by maggie at
11:15 AM | Link |
Post a Comment
<< Home