7 comments

• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Randy- my understanding is that the FMA would seek to say that federally, marriage is only between one man and one woman. If the main reasoning behind a FMA is to avoid the interstate conflict brought about by the US constitution, why not have an amendment that is more like DOMA, saying that if marriages are legal in one state, that doesn't mean they are legal in another.
  
  I'm against both options, but I feel like saying the FMA would avoid this interstate conflict is a bit simplistic to what a FMA really means and would do.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  Brady you're usually better with your reading comprehension. I think something has got you flustered lately ...
  
  

  ...that is just one line of reasoning for a Federal Marriage Amendment...

  
  
  Your option to amend, is already happening on the state level and won't stand the test of time. We both know that same sex couples who get hitched in one state won't restrict themselves to living in "gay marriage" states their whole lives. Some will even purposefully move to a non-gay marriage state to challenge the system with regard to the equal protection element already afforded through the Constitution. A federal amendment has to bring uniformity to the entire union or remain silent allowing for states rights to fill the void ... which is what is already happening.
  
  Again, I could be wrong. I am not a lawyer.
  reply
• 

  Brady

  8 months ago

  Randy- is that "something's got you flustered lately" a reference to my comment over at Jay's blog last week, because yeah, that was a bad one. Actually--I STILL don't have cable or internet at home after the hurricane and I'm left to read blogs and such in a much more limited time frame than I'm used to...maybe that's it.
  
  Regardless, on this one, I saw your caveat. I still feel the argument is too simplistic. For me it's kind of like the argument you brought up about the gay activists saying a state constitutional amendment isn't necessary because the law already exists. You're right...the real reason is they don't want the amendment, and the "law already exists" argument isn't covering the totality of the issue.
  
  For the FMA, anti-gay marriage folks simply want to ban gay marriage....avoiding the interstate conflict isn't the reason or even a main reason, it's an argument that isn't covering the totality of the issue.
  
  It's really similar to the "law exists' argument of pro-gay marriage folks--both arguments are kind of watered down ways to to try to convince people one way or the other. If you're in the middle on this issue, It's a lot easier to say you voted for FMA to avoid interstate confusion and battles than to say you voted against gay marriage. Conversely, it's a lot easier to say you voted because the amendment was redundant than because you wanted to ban gay marriage.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  Hi Brady. I didn't see that comment on Jay's blog. It just seemed your comments have been different lately. Now I understand why. I pray all is restored at your home quickly.
  
  It may be because it is late but all I can say further is thanks for your perspective :).
  reply
• 

  Jay

  8 months ago

  "An FMA would overrule every state law or state constitutional definition of marriage and bring a uniformity of policy across the nation."
  
  But "uniformity of policy across the nation" is a concept that a conservative -- by definition an advocate of a state's rights over the rights of the Federal government -- should loathe. Yes, different states having different definitions of marriage is going to lead to problems and lawsuits and all sorts of things... Just like different state's gun and abortion regulations already do. But that's just a side-effect of the ideal of anti-Federalism that conservatives should support.
  
  Let's say the voters of California and Connecticut had voted for same-sex couples to marry. Would you still consider the Federal Marriage Amendment necessary? I certainly don't agree with Supreme Courts overturning the "will of the people" (though since they are appointed by elected officials that argument has the tendency to fall on its face), but I also don't think it is right for the Federal government to limit the rights of the voters of the states to decide these issues for themselves.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  8 months ago

  Jay I think I made my case well enough. I agree that conservatives should loathe amending the constitution on a social issue but I think the culture war (both sides) has escalated it that far regardless. Neither side will rest until their "ideal" is uniform across the country.
  
  Also, the ratification process can only be accomplished through the will of the people. It starts in Congress and ends with 2/3rds of the state legislatures approving it. All of that is based in "the people's" branch of representative government. The ratification process is a beautiful element of our Republic because it requires grassroots involvement (on the state and federal levels.) It doesn't start and end on Capitol Hill.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  8 months ago

  Jay, I think you'll notice that the Confederates lost the Civil War and very few people today mourn that fact; something as morally reprehensible as slavery should not be on a "what's right for North Carolina might not be right for Vermont" basis the way the age you can get your driver's license is. I'm not equating gay marriage to slavery, I'm pointing out that there are times when a conservative must recognize that an issue should be standardized across the nation, or else we won't really be a nation (which was the ultimate point of the Civil War).
  
  Incidentally, the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, also present in a similar form in the Articles of Confederation) speaks directly to this concept. The founding fathers recognized that the country couldn't stay unified if each state was acting like a seperate nation, refusing to accept the official business of other states at its own discretion. This makes it so that a citizen of the United States, who gets married in North Carolina, can move to Vermont and remain married. It also makes it so that the citizen married and then divorced in North Carolina cannot escape to Vermont to avoid paying child support in North Carolina. And you'll be hard press to argue that these are bad things.
  reply