I support gay marriage as long as
it's done by state legislatures and not the courts. I think it requires state
legislation to make it less contentious. The Supremes should rule that marriage
is a state matter and that the 10th Amendment precludes Federal intrusion, so
the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. However, I don't see how the
14th Amendment would apply in this case, so the Supremes should say it requires
action state by state to make it legal. The Federal and state governments
should recognize any marriage performed in any other state. I'm a Republican
with libertarian tendencies. I don't think the Federal Government belongs in
anybody's bedroom.
I think marriage is a civil contract upon which inheritance
is based. This was the position of the Pilgrims in 1620 who landed on Plymouth
Rock without a minister to do weddings. Marriage is a legal construct to allow
individuals to accept a standard relationship agreement enforced by the state.
I don't believe marriage has to involve procreation. Procreation happens very
frequently without marriage, and marriage happens very frequently without
procreation. I do believe marriage is a states' rights issue. Every state
should have the right to make its own laws about who can marry in their state.
However, a marriage performed in any one state should be recognized in all
states. I do not think that gay marriage is required by the 14th Amendment. In
practical terms, it would be a Roe v Wade scale disaster if the Supremes tried
to make law by ruling gay marriage is required by the 14th Amendment. It seems
obvious that the 14th Amendment is about slavery and race. I don't think gay
marriage was ever discussed as a reason for adoption of the Amendment. Finding
an abortion penumbra in the constitution as an excuse to legislate from the
bench has made the abortion argument much more divisive and prolonged than it
would have been if it was left to the state legislatures to work out. Gay
marriage belongs in state legislatures.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
legislated as a result of public support, not the result of the ruling in Brown
vs Board of Education. The Roe vs Wade decision has been divisive for years and
still is, in my opinion because it was legislated in court and not in the state
legislatures. That's why gay marriage should be the legislature's call. The end
is usually tainted by the means. If abortion had been worked out state by
state, we'd be at the same place we are now with a lot fewer angry people. In
the meantime, people can see that the sky won't fall just because gays are
married. We can try it out and get used to it gradually. That's the advantage
of a federal system. Local decisions can pave the way for more general results.
Without the Defense of Marriage
Act, gay marriages performed in New
York, for example, would have to be recognized by all
other states and the Federal Government. My wife's cousin got married to his
partner in New York.
They live in Florida.
If DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, then Florida
would have to recognize it. Also, they could file joint income tax and get
social security survivor benefits. Problem solved without anywhere near the
fuss of a 14th Amendment ruling that gay marriage is Constitutionally
guaranteed.
A 10th Amendment
ruling against DOMA should get a lot of conservative backing. We love
the 10th Amendment. We want the Feds out of the picture as much as possible. Consistency requires that we should want DOMA out of the picture as well.