Thursday, July 06, 2006

Gay Marriage

A commenter over at says this in response to Gay Patriot's gay marriage post:

Just over a month ago in making the case for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, President Bush said, “An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice.” Like the president, many other supporters of this gratuitous amendment believe it is necessary to prevent state courts from requiring their jurisdictions to accord same-sex unions the same status as traditional marriage.

Well, that argument became less compelling this morning when New York’s highest court ruled “that gay marriage is not allowed under state law.” In a statement, New York Governor George Pataki said, “I am also pleased that the court has reaffirmed that the Legislature is the appropriate branch of government to initiate and make any changes to existing law governing marriage.” He’s right; the legislature, rather than the courts, is the appropriate forum to decide such issues.

The commenter responds thusly:

  1. “that argument became less compelling this morning”

    I’ve seen this argument several times today, but it doesn’t hold up. This is one decision of one court in one state. That this one court ruled in favor of a democratic resolution to this issue does not diminish the case for enacting protection for states that do not wish to be subject to a Full Faith and Credit challenge from couples that may have received a license in one state, but move to another state that does not recognize such a redefinition of marriage.

    Case in point: The Washington Supreme Court is holding onto a decision as we speak. If the WASC decides to discover a right to same-sex marriage (and indicators are that it will), WA state stands to become the “Las Vegas” for same-sex marriage. Why? Because WA has no residency requirement for the issuance of marriage licenses.

    The concept of federalism is not violated by enshrining a uniform definition and composition of marriage in the constitution. A good analysis here:

    This is only a “gratuitous” issue to those who look at marriage as a bundle of benefits and/or a contract that was established to affirm the close feelings a couple (or a group) feels for one another rather than what marriage really is (an institution that for all of our history has existed to bind a mother and a father to the children they create and remain responsible for so the state need not become the “village”). The attempts to fundamentally alter marriage will not be limited should one group see success in imposing its redefinition on America. The very same legal arguments being employed now are being studied by others who would like to craft marriage to their image (polygamists, polyamorists) — to the ultimate destruction of the institution.

    Thanks for the space.

    Comment by RaiderNation — July 6, 2006 @ 8:11 pm - July 6, 2006

And I agree. It reminds me of the comment by Syndrome in the movie The Incredibles, "And when everyone is super, no one will be." The ultimate goal isn't for everyone to be married. The ultimate goal is that marriage is rendered meaningless.

No comments: