bookbanner
CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR'S BOOKS

Thursday, July 21, 2011

OF STATES AND MARRIAGE

"You will wear your pink tutu and ruby slippers and you will like it. Bigot."

Just Say No
Ace at the AOS HQ has a suggestion. He doesn't like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and thinks the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay "marriage" is a bad idea for much of the same reason that I do. Its not that he likes gay "marriage" its that he dislikes adding that to the powers of the federal government.

You see, at present the US Constitution says nothing about marriage, that was left up to the states and individual citizens, as was proper. The federal government has no business in marriage, according to the philosophy of the founding fathers. By adding an amendment directly addressing the concept, even in a negative sense, that specifically empowers the federal government in a legal sense in a realm it was never meant to be. By saying the federal government won't do a specific thing about a specific topic, that means it can do other things, which is a really bad idea.

So like me, Ace has always been opposed to that kind of amendment. So he thought it through and wrote up what he thinks ought to be used instead. Here's the rough text:
1. The laws of marriage shall be enacted into law by the normal and usual legislative process only, or by explicit amendment to a state constitution expressly creating a new law of marriage.

2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, nor the laws of any foreign jurisdiction, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

3. The law of marriage in one state shall not be construed to create a right to marriage in another state.
What this does is what the DOMA does - states do not have to recognize marriage just because some idiots in another state decided some aberration is actually a marriage, but in a manner that is virtually impossible to throw out or reverse. No court in the land can possibly find one portion of the US constitution... unconstitutional. The only thing that's come close is for courts to say that a state constitutional amendment can violate the federal constitution, which in the case of the California Proposition 8 amendment was absurdly false.

This is simple and unlike the present marriage amendment would do the job without empowering the federal government over marriage. The focus is instead on states rather than the federal government. Like the rest of the US Constitution, it is a limitation on the federal government rather than an expansion. And unlike the present attempt, it could pass instead of be a political football, as Ace explains so well in his post.

I want this to make it out there and be supported by more people. Its simple, brilliant and would work. And the gay activists would go berserk because they want more than anything to force every state to obey their demands by having one state kneel to their wishes then the full faith & credit act extending it everywhere else. This would easily pass a majority of states, and watching the Democrats in congress try to argue that its wrong would be interesting, since all it does is apply the 10th amendment and state sovereignty to marriage.

Oh, as an aside, Eric commented a while back he didn't think the FFCA would apply to this, but unfortunately he's in error. It would, and will, when the DOMA is overturned or declared unconstitutional. The problem is, marriage is, for the government, contractual in nature, which must be recognized in all the states of the union unless other law prevents it.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home