Jarrett White is obviously not the “biggest states’-rights guy on campus” (ODE, Jan. 23). He might be for federalism when it suits him, but considering marriage a federal issue is certainly one of the most anti-federalist positions one can currently take.
Not to disparage White, he and I agree on some issues and I would, in general, consider him an ally on campus; but on this issue he is exactly wrong. Marriage has never been, and should not become, a federal issue. Furthermore, the Constitution is not the appropriate place to turn to on social policy. A Federal Marriage Amendment would undermine the right that states have always had to enforce and define the marriage contract.
The FMA is, in addition to being a very quick way to undermine federalism permanently, supported based often on false assumptions. The main one, of course, is that the full-faith and credit clause of the Constitution would require all states to recognize a gay marriage from any state of the union. This is simply not true. States do not have to recognize each others’ marriages between heterosexual couples, Supreme Court decisions and the Defense of Marriage Act have made sure of that.
Further, to assume that gay marriage would somehow undermine “traditional marriage” is ridiculous. Certainly the sorts of serial marriages we see in Hollywood, or even among friends and neighbors, do more harm to the institution than allowing two people of the same sex and/or gender to marry ever could.
By leaving the issue up to the states, government remains closer to the people, and each state can have a marriage law with which its majority is comfortable. If we must allow morality to be legislated, we can at least have the good sense to let the laws be specific to every region. The purpose of our system of government is making sure that governance is done locally, and at a level near the electorate.
Sadly, many on both the right and the left have lost sight of this. Our founding document is not the place that this issue should be hashed out. The debate over marriage should rage in state legislatures, not in Congress.
It is unfortunate, in my view, that same-sex marriage is not a very popular movement in America today. However, it is also my feeling that this will change in time. If by some horrible circumstance the FMA passes, it will be nearly impossible to undo. Whereas state constitutions are relatively easy to change via voter initiative, amendments to the U.S. Constitution are, by design, incredibly difficult to pass. And, only once has an amendment been repealed.
The federal government has never been in the marriage business, and should certainly not start now. The consequences of allowing such an abhorrent amendment to pass into the Constitution are too great, and we must not pass the FMA. The fears of the moral right are severely overstated, and based on misunderstanding the law. White and company may call themselves federalists, but their position on the FMA belies a desire for moral legislation. Fortunately, the Constitution is not so easily tainted.