Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | June 6, 2006 | Dale Carpenter

Posted on 06/01/2006 8:28:01 AM PDT by Sunsong

Today the Cato Institute is publishing a paper I've written on why a federal amendment banning gay marriage is a bad idea, even if you oppose gay marriage. Of course, if you think recognizing same-sex marriages is a good idea, that's a strong reason by itself to oppose an amendment banning them. This paper is written for conservatives and moderates who either oppose or are unsure about same-sex marriage. Here's the executive summary:

Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim that an amendment is needed immediately to prevent same-sex marriages from being forced on the nation. That fear is even more unfounded today than it was in 2004, when Congress last considered the FMA. The better view is that the policy debate on same-sex marriage should proceed in the 50 states . . . .

A person who opposes same-sex marriage on policy grounds can and should also oppose a constitutional amendment foreclosing it, on grounds of federalism, confidence that opponents will prevail without an amendment, or a belief that public policy issues should only rarely be determined at the constitutional level.

There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.

Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.

Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.

Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history.

The paper goes into some detail responding to the common arguments for a federal amendment on this issue, most prominently the facile judicial-activism argument. You can read the whole thing here. While there is a reasonable (though ultimately unpersuasive) argument to be made against gay marriage as a policy matter, the case for a constitutional amendment is very weak. And it is weak for good conservative reasons.

I'll be in Washington on Monday speaking to Cato and the Center for American Progress, as well as to congressional staff, about the proposed amendment. When the schedule is available publicly, I may update this post to let you know more.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: cato; crevolist; fma; gaymarriage; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; leftists; liberals; liberaltarians; libertarians; perverts; pervertspervert; quislings; samesexmarriage; traitors; wadlist; warongenesis; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-350 next last
To: sittnick
Uh, tell it to Massachusetts.

The people of Massachusetts have it within their power to amend their constitution. There is a bill to do so in both wings of their legislature. It is their issue, not the government's.

61 posted on 06/01/2006 11:50:51 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
And that may be grounds for a federal lawsuit based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law persuant to the FFC clause.

62 posted on 06/01/2006 12:02:49 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68; BlackElk
Uh, tell it to Massachusetts.

The people of Massachusetts have it within their power to amend their constitution. There is a bill to do so in both wings of their legislature. It is their issue, not the government's.


The courts found something in the state constitution that wasn't there. The bar for amending a state constitution is set quite high, and of course it is harder to punish individual legislators when they didn't legislate anything. With that attitude, the courts can legislate anything that has under 67% opposition on the basis that it couldn't pass normally, but couldn't be overturned if made law by the courts. Phooey!

I would prefer that the judge's juridiction be limited, but there does not yet seem to be the political will for that. This is the next best thing.

When a state starts making up definitions for words, it becomes the country's business, since the objects in question (those with phony marriage statuses) work in different states and move. If Massachusetts started issuing phony currency in likewise it would also be a national issue.

If you could convince me that it was somehow anti-federalist to support amending the Constitution to not allow a state to pretend that formalized, institutionalized sodomy is worthy of the appellation marriage, then I would conclude federalism is obsolete. After Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, I have no more patience for the "heads I win, tails you lose" approach.

The Cato Institute portrays itself as libertarian. The true liberatarian approach would be to posit that government has no business nor need to recognize marriage at all, and leave it to churches and social organizations to have weddings that would have zero official significance. The questions about divorce settlements and wills and estates could be handled by straight contract law. (For the record,I am NOT a libertarian, I am only stating the consistent libertarian position.)
63 posted on 06/01/2006 12:27:46 PM PDT by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
A system like that simply won't survive. There are really only two choices. If we don't amend the Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman, the Supreme Court will impose nationwide gay "marriage" on us, using the 14th Amendment, followed by additional court orders for nationwide gay adoption, gay school curricula, gay affirmative action, and so on.

Well put. Thank you for stating the consequences so clearly.
64 posted on 06/01/2006 12:30:11 PM PDT by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

You talk as though this has been working just great for decades. Not quite. Massachusetts just legalized "gay marriage", and the ramifications are a long way from playing out.

The whole argument will be rendered moot as federal courts step in at the opportune political moment to declare some state's affirmation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman unconstitional. Already happening.

People arguing the other side here on this thread are just practicising "realpolitik", pragmatically pretending to be states rights advocates.

You in that category?


65 posted on 06/01/2006 12:36:02 PM PDT by olderwiser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

We insist people get help who are sexually attracted to young boys.

We insist people get help who are sexually attracted to their siblings, moms, dads etc.

Then why is it a No No to insist people get help who are sexually attracted to the same sex?

All are abnormal sexual attractions.

None have a place in "marriage"!


66 posted on 06/01/2006 12:53:37 PM PDT by dcnd9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
The courts found something in the state constitution that wasn't there. The bar for amending a state constitution is set quite high, and of course it is harder to punish individual legislators when they didn't legislate anything. With that attitude, the courts can legislate anything that has under 67% opposition on the basis that it couldn't pass normally, but couldn't be overturned if made law by the courts. Phooey!

But that is the structure of Massachusetts' constitution. This is the essence of federalism. It is not the place of the federal government to remedy problems in a state's constitution. No matter how difficult it is, it is still only the problem of the people of that state.

When a state starts making up definitions for words, it becomes the country's business, since the objects in question (those with phony marriage statuses) work in different states and move. If Massachusetts started issuing phony currency in likewise it would also be a national issue.

No it does not. It becomes the business of the other states if Massachusetts does something that has an adverse effect on the other states. As for currency, the Constitution reserves that for the federal government. It is specified as one of the enumerated powers of the Congress.

If you could convince me that it was somehow anti-federalist to support amending the Constitution to not allow a state to pretend that formalized, institutionalized sodomy is worthy of the appellation marriage, then I would conclude federalism is obsolete.

Any restriction placed on a state not specifically the responsibility of the federal government is anti-federalist. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, as every federal court has found. Even the 9th Circuit affirmed that decision. There is no danger that any state will have to recognize the homosexual marriage from any other state. That has been affirmed by courts. So what is the need, other than an emotional concern that one day it might change? Let's all stay out of the business of the individual sovereign states.

I am about as far from a Libertarian as one can get, but in this case they are spot on.

67 posted on 06/01/2006 12:57:43 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Because it's NOT the real issue. The real issue is public recognition, then tolerance, then finally acceptance of homosexuality as an equally alternative lifestyle.

Money is the real issue. Look around, homosexuality is currently treated as an "equally alternative lifestyle." Just try denouncing it and see what happens to you.

What they want is the right to tax breaks and survivor benefits.

This is a states issue and needs to remain a states issue.

68 posted on 06/01/2006 1:00:44 PM PDT by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: olderwiser
You talk as though this has been working just great for decades. Not quite. Massachusetts just legalized "gay marriage", and the ramifications are a long way from playing out.

So we are trying to fix a problem that is neither imminent nor defined?

The whole argument will be rendered moot as federal courts step in at the opportune political moment to declare some state's affirmation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman unconstitional. Already happening.

Quite a few federal courts have stepped into the fray, and every single one including the infamous 9th Circuit has affirmed states' bans on gay marriage as constitutional. There is now a fairly lengthy list of precedents reflecting that states have a compelling and legitimate interest in banning same sex marriages. If a renegade district court did strike one down, it would never pass muster in either the Circuit Court or the USSC.

People arguing the other side here on this thread are just practicising "realpolitik", pragmatically pretending to be states rights advocates.
You in that category?

Is that the extent of your argument? First you cannot even define the problem. Second, you cannot find a single case supporting the need. Finally, since none of that works, you take an emotional and hollow shot at those who disagree with you.

69 posted on 06/01/2006 1:05:46 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Thanks for the post. I agree completely with the arguments presented, as I have repeatedly stated on a number of threads. Conservatives shooting down federalism. Wow.

Wow -me too!.

The "conservative" author of this article who would attempt employing conservative principles in situationally and relatively premised constructs devoid of observing the reality of the clear and present danger of judicial activism already evidenced WHILE conversely touting the noble delusional goal of protecting the possibility of the impossible, that impossibly being the Rights of the States to possibly enact legislation to legalize homosexual marriage!

The "conservative" author clearly argues for something leftist and liberal -the possibility of homosexual marriage... OH the horrorrrrr if the conservative meanies prevent this from ever possibly happening again like it did in Massachusetts AND the horrorrrrr in actually kicking the Massachusetts' homosexual marriage "legislation" imposed from the bench to the curb ...

As to the "federalism" shell game (similar to the DOMA sky is not falling argument) --"federalism" is quite okay and quite safe -I do not see the "states" screaming with the enraged indignation as is evidenced by the homosexual left and the author of this "piece"...

I suggest you check out some of the other "conservative" works published by the "openly gay" apparently politically conflicted author of the article posted:

Dale Carpenter - Faculty Profiles - UofM Law School

I find it very odd that one of his Works in Progress is titled, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage"

Why do I find this odd? -- WELL... I find it odd that an assumed intelligent individual with an as such assumed well developed cogent and coherent philosophy guiding him can maintain both conservative and liberal positions that diverge so greatly they appear at times irreconcilable, conflicted, and contradictory...

How is this possible?

MY theory is that the author has one master -HOWEVER, it is not conservatism or liberalism -- [IT] is the homosexual disorder AND it is ONLY in realizing the master he serves does one find a cogent and coherent philosophy evidenced in his writings and opinions...

What do you think on this theory? -Can one KNOW what one supports regarding the homosexual disorder via a cogent premised analysis that cuts through the mystique and argumentative window dressing?

ROTFLMAO

70 posted on 06/01/2006 1:19:19 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
"The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law persuant to the FFC clause."

Yes, but is hasn't (yet) been challenged in the USSC -- some say it wouldn't survive a challenge since it goes beyond Congress' power to "prescribe...the Effect" which the laws of one state have in another.

Second, any "marital" court judgements made in a same-sex state against a person who resides in another state are applicable.

71 posted on 06/01/2006 1:26:11 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Who said not imminent? The ramifications of homsexual "marriage" are happening now, and will continue to play out across the country, in court and legislative battles, in business and in schools, etc. The two are not mutually exclusive. Problem now. Problem growing.

"Nor defined?" It seems your side of the argument has a problem with defining things, huh?

Here's just one article from NPR about how the issue is hardly settled in the courts:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5164355

This is settled law at the federal level?  Ha-ha.  That's a pretty limp argument. 

72 posted on 06/01/2006 1:26:22 PM PDT by olderwiser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

Why not? Look, There is no danger in us not giving women the vote, why make that a constitutional amendment?
It is to lock down this issue and make the matter settled.

Anyone who is against gay marriage should have no problem with this concept, at all.

OTOH, "Since there is effectively no danger to traditional marriage," ... this is obviously a false statement, given that more than one state has had judges imposing it on their state, and interstate issues have *already* appeared in state and Federal courts cases.

The real opposition to FMA are from those who wouldnt mind at all if gay marriage snuck in the back door somehow.


73 posted on 06/01/2006 1:26:41 PM PDT by WOSG (Do your duty, be a patriot, support our Troops - VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Good post. And what you stated in your post, is exactly why the court in MA is waiting to see what happens to this amendment, before they decide if the people of MA have the right to petition to get their amendment on the ballot.

The people of course, per the constitution, do have the right, but the court will decide if the homosexual activists can stop the amendment (court can prevent it), after they see what happens to the FMA. Now what does that say for states rights?

If the FMA passes, they rule in favor of petitioners, if it doesn't they refuse to let it on to the ballot.
74 posted on 06/01/2006 1:34:36 PM PDT by gidget7 (PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

"But that is the structure of Massachusetts' constitution. This is the essence of federalism. It is not the place of the federal government to remedy problems in a state's constitution."

There was NO problem with the Massachusetts state constitution... the problem was with 4 Mass supreme Court justices who wilfully IGNORED the Mass state constitution to make that state imposed gay marriage.

Such a problem exists on the Federal level as well.

"No it does not. It becomes the business of the other states if Massachusetts does something that has an adverse effect on the other states"

Surely, then you are against the Lawrence v Texas decision, which imposed a Federal order on the states, in a matter in which the state was doing something that had no adverse effect on other states. Surely to be fully consistent, you will have to say that Virginia v Loving was also wrongly decided. ...

So, lets say we wok up and realized that the 14th doesnt actually cover the situation of interracial marriage, that it was an intrusion on Federalism and not quite the 'equal protection' issue some think it is, and there was a constitutional amendment proposed forbidding state laws against inter-racial marriage .... would you be for it or against it?

"There is no danger to the institution of marriage, as every federal court has found."

What an absurd comment. You just said it was a state matter, so how can Federal courts be the one to tell us that! ... Obviously w ehave seen several cases undrmining traditional concepts of marriage in states other than the one imposing gay marriage. Full faith and credit clauses comes into play, and hiding behind shallow 'federalism' arguments doesnt cut it.

Your own words make clear why a FMA Constitutional Amendment is ultimately necessary.


75 posted on 06/01/2006 1:36:09 PM PDT by WOSG (Do your duty, be a patriot, support our Troops - VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ksen
"What they want is the right to tax breaks and survivor benefits."

That could be handled with legislation -- we don't need to re-define marriage.

I seem to remember that some time ago that there was talk about creating "civil unions" which would address all these monetary and legal concerns -- that was rejected by the homosexuals if you recall. They want "marriage".

76 posted on 06/01/2006 1:38:06 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yes, but is hasn't (yet) been challenged in the USSC -- some say it wouldn't survive a challenge since it goes beyond Congress' power to "prescribe...the Effect" which the laws of one state have in another.

No, but is has been found constitutional in the federal court challenges to date. Even the 9th Circuit found that a state had a legitimate interest in banning same sex marriages. The 11th Circuit decision upholding Florida's legitimate ban on same sex adoptions was appealed to the USSC which chose not to hear it, an indication that it stood no chance. There is absolutely no evidence from any quarter that either DOMA or state same sex bans are at risk.

Second, any "marital" court judgements made in a same-sex state against a person who resides in another state are applicable.

You may be right, but I can't see any kind of significant issue here, as there would be if a marriage were required to be recognized. If it were, the first remedy would be a cure for DOMA, not a constitutional amendment.

77 posted on 06/01/2006 1:51:33 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
They want "marriage"

Actually, [they] are leftists and like any leftists want a handout -they want their socialist share of the privelege and reward that society decided long ago was merited heterosexual married procreative families...

78 posted on 06/01/2006 1:52:36 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: olderwiser
Who said not imminent? The ramifications of homsexual "marriage" are happening now, and will continue to play out across the country, in court and legislative battles, in business and in schools, etc. The two are not mutually exclusive. Problem now. Problem growing.

Let's not confuse the issue of same sex marriage with all of the other concerns associated with the homosexual issue. Same sex marriage bans are not threatened anywhere. If you are concerned about other types of same sex unions or relationships, schools, etc, then that is a different issue, not to be addressed even by the amendment.

Who said not imminent? The ramifications of homsexual "marriage" are happening now, and will continue to play out across the country, in court and legislative battles, in business and in schools, etc. The two are not mutually exclusive. Problem now. Problem growing.

When you say the ramifications are a long way out, but you don't define those ramifications, I wonder if the amendment isn't a bit premature. I have seen numerous definitions of the problems people see here in conjunction with their support for the amendment, but few would seem to agree on how those problems are going to be resolved by an amendment.

This is settled law at the federal level? Ha-ha. That's a pretty limp argument.

Well, first I obviously don't have your skills at debating. Second I never indicated it was settled, but merely not at risk, as every single decision supports a state's right to ban same sex marriage, and there is almost no chance a court challenge will succeed.

79 posted on 06/01/2006 2:00:18 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Anyone who is against gay marriage should have no problem with this concept, at all.

Therein lies the false brass ring. I am against same sex marriage, I am not gay or lesbian, so what the hey, why not. Ain't gonna hurt me any.

Well in fact, I am against same sex marriage, but even more I will challenge any illegitimate attempt to impose federal power on that of the individual states. Almost every supporter on these boards has for years screamed loudly at the growing power of the federal government, claiming a strong central government is the basis of liberal thought. But here in this issue, where it is easy to despise homosexuality itself, why not? Why should a state be permitted to legalize something I disagree with so vehemently? That's fair weather conservatism at its best.

The real opposition to FMA are from those who wouldnt mind at all if gay marriage snuck in the back door somehow.

I oppose the FMA, yet I will oppose same sex marriages in my state if the issue comes up. But Massachusetts and every other state are part of a constitutional Republic, not a democracy and certainly not a theocracy. As such each of those states has the right to do what it will with respect to same sex marriage.

Yes, many who are opposed to FMA are liberals and those with a homosexual agenda. There are however, many conservatives who support our republican form of government far more than any emotional and personal biases.

80 posted on 06/01/2006 2:13:49 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-350 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson