|
June 14, 2003
More Federalist Hypocracy In the wake of a Canadian court decision legalizing gay marriage, NRO's Stanley Kurtz calls for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Kurtz says this will put the issue "back into the hands of the people." While I agree with Kurtz that it is not the place of the courts to legislate what does or does not constitute a marriage, his notion that an amendment will place the issue in the hands of the people is either intentionally deceptive or simply foolish. If an amendment is added to the Constitution defining marriage as Kurtz would prefer to see it, that would forbid the people from deciding the issue. If Massachusetts wanted to legalize gay marriage, such an amendment would nullify any state laws doing so. Suggesting this is a way to put the issue before the people is ridiculous. The courts have no business in legislation. Nor does the federal government have any business in marriage. Marriage is an issue best left to the states. If some states choose to legalize gay marriage, while others do not, that's the best way to leave the issue in the hands of the people. The Constitution is too important a document to be sullied with foolish amendments like the Federal Marriage Amendment. Leave the issue at the local level, where it belongs. Posted at 10:22 PM | Philosophy | TrackBack (0) Comments
What, the "Defense of Marriage Act" isn't enough for Kurtz? We have to have another stupid law legislating a narrow morality? The NRO staff is not of singular opinion on all issues, notably not Gay marriage: Stanley, John, I hate to wade into this controversy, but surely comparing the ‘stability’ of homosexual relationships against some presumed heterosexual standard (is there such a thing?) is impossible in the absence of a legally recognized form of gay ‘marriage’. And that’s just the point that some of its supporters (quite reasonably) are making. As to the effects of such unions on the institution of marriage, I would think that they would be minimal. After the initial flurry of publicity, I’d be astonished if heterosexuals would pay much attention. The real issue here is that the current state of the law makes it far less likely that gays will be able to establish and enjoy the advantages of long-term relationships, long-term relationships that would be good for the individual and, for those who see such matters in utilitarian terms, society. Worse still, it has to be recognized that the failure of the law to recognize such unions can lead to injustice in some rather more prosaic areas, such as the absence of the death tax exemption rightly enjoyed by all surviving spouses unless (ahem) they are foreigners married to Americans. I can’t see how such ending such inequities could be a threat to anyone – other, of course, than the IRS. And who cares about them? --Andrew Stuttaford Posted by: Haws at June 15, 1903 08:24 PMIsn't Kurtz the one that argues that gay marriage will increase the likelyhood of heterosexual adultery? I think that that stance basically discounts any credibility he has on the issue. Whatever stances he might take are wildly biased/spun, if he can make an argument like that one... Posted by: JoeF at June 19, 1903 04:20 AMPost a comment
|
