Replies

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that formalized, institutionalized sodomy is worthy of the appellation marriage, then I would conclude federalism is obsolete.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.)

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.