diet coke for breakfast
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Posted by Jake
Why I Think a Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Mairrage is a Bad Idea?
1.) It won't pass. The US public is still divided on the issue, and there is no way they are going win that much support (in spite of the much hyped backlash).
2.) It abandons federalism. What was wrong with having some states allow it and some not? People will move where they want to live and where they think they will be welcome. No problems. Some people would rush to say that according to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution mairrages in Vermont are good in Tennessee. But as James cunningly pointed out earlier, the Defense of Mairrage Act 1996 states that states are not required to honor the gay mairrages of other states.
3.) It doesn't rise to the level of the Constitution. There are plenty of good things that need to be laws. Not all of them need to be amendments.
This issue is a loser for Bush. It would wed him to the social conservatives when he is trying to woo the center. Hopefully he will stick to his, "we won't need one" line.
I am a bit miffed at the Weekly Standard though for this and this.
The idea that gay mairrage would imply polyamory is laughable. Further, I don't buy the idea that the children of gay mairrage would be any more or less screwed up than the children of straight mairrages. They will likely be really liberal, but no more or less depraved than anyone else living in Greenwich Village.
Social conservatives need to pony up to the idea that mairrage as they understood it was gutted long ago. Gay people had nothing to do with it then and denying it to them now won't save it.