Comments on: Marriage and States’ Rights

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I knew the Republican Party was in a rut, but have we reached the point where even the basic concepts of federalism are opaque to its star commentators? (Meaning Frum.) When a liberal like Matt Yglesias (http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/002669.html#002669) gets a core concept of conservatism better than the NYT's official conservative voice, one can but weep.

By: legion

legion — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Well, there are other effects to be considered... Over time (and I mean a generation or two here), people will tend to 'vote with their feet' if the local political climate is unpleasant to them. If I were gay and living in Cincinatti, for example, I would strongly consider moving at my earliest opportunity. It would be a difficult choice, one I would have to balance against my ties to friends and family in the local area, and how much that counted against my dignity, self-respect, and safety. It might take years to build my resume up to find a decent job in my 'preferred location', but that's the price one pays. The whole point to have stae governments and state legal systems is that states are and should be different. The question is: is this something that needs to be uniform across the country? I know it's morally repugnant to a lot of people, but that hasn't forced Nevada to outlaw prostitution, nor is anyone proposing a constitutional amendment to make them.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Prostitution--or gambling, drinking, etc.--are activities that can be confined to a time and place. I'm not sure marriage is.

By: legion

legion — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Good point. I've never been to the Chicken Ranch (or whatever), but I'm just assuming they don't have a 'to go' menu! Or a 'doggie bag' (ick). Reading these threads just confirms my other thought that this is a very bad time to deal with this issue, regardless of which side you're on. It's pretty apparent that this is an issue where neither side is going to get everything it "wants", and both sides must work on what they're each willing to accept, or even tolerate. Unfortunately, this is an election year, and there's no such thing as a moderate position in an election year. Sigh.

By: melvin toast

melvin toast — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Could someone explain to me who's getting short shrift? Gay guys can marry any gay or straight girls they want. They just can't marry gay guys. I'm straight but are my equal protection right violated if I can't marry another guy? Is there some kind of religious gay ceremony that they are precluded from performing. Personally I found doing the paper work of getting married a pain in the ass and would have prefered not to have to do it. However it makes other paperwork much simpler. But I don't think that's what these people are showing up at city hall for. If we allow gay marriages to go forward then we should just do away with the concept that government recognizes something called marriage. All marriages should be called matings and leave it to the individual to refer to marriage how they wish. I don't want judge telling my children that they married two men.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

With all due respect to Yglesias' Federalism answer the FF&C clause will smash his argument.

Further, logistically, his answer is wholly unworkable. Frum gave 8 examples. In reality there would be 18,000 examples. So we get that many laws X 50 states.

Only the lawyers could like that solution.

---