INTRACONSERVATIVE FMA FIGHTING: Jonah Goldberg et al.

Goldberg's syndicated column: I guess I'm against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

I know that's not the sort of hard-hitting paragraph columnists are supposed to start out with.

My wishy-washiness stems in part from the fact that I'm against same-sex marriage, but I'm also against this "solution." Moreover, I really don't like most of the arguments for or against same-sex marriage.

Both sides seem to suffer from a nasty case of consequentialism. ...
more

A reader responds: The problem with the federalism argument, which you don't acknowledge in your recent column, is that marriage is pretty meaningless if it's a status that depends on geography. What happens when a gay Mass. married couple relocates to Texas, which doesn't recognize homosexual marriage? Are they still married? If not, then it seems that we now have an even worse civil rights violation than before (if that's what it was before Goodridge). The straight husband and wife move to Texas, and they're still married. The gay couple, once married, now is not. ...

The horribly painful truth is that what we actually need is an amendment that gives Congress the power to define and regulate marriage and/or domestic partnerships. The precedent for this is the 14th Amendment, which gave Congress the power to enforce equal rights. Congress is nearly the last body on earth that I would like to see in charge of marriage policy. But it's better than having the blue-state supreme courts impose same-sex marriage on everyone, which is the only alternative.

more
posted by Eve at 4:59 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home