Conservatives’ federalism copout
In effect, “leaving it to the states” is a tacit acknowledgement that gay marriage will become the law of the land — that it’s a fait accompli the minute a couple married in Massachusetts moves to Mississippi. Except rather than having a national discussion about it — rather than wrestling to find some coherent conservative solution (whether it’s that marriage is a special institution that should be between one man and one woman, or to support civil unions, or to say that marriage is a bourgeois institution with salutary benefits for everyone, including gays) — Republican politicians would be evading the issue.
For some, that’s a fine dénouement. In a sense, it’s Burkean. A slow, evolutionary implementation taking place over the course of decades (the courts would eventually mandate that Mississippi recognize Massachusetts’ marriage laws) would give society additional time to adapt to a changing world. That wouldn’t be the worst outcome — certainly better than a Supreme Court decision mandating the legalization of gay marriage everywhere immediately. (Though ironically, a court decision might be better politically for the GOP.)
But whether you’re for gay marriage or against it, let’s not pretend that advocating a patchwork of competing and disparate marriage laws is a profile in courage.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
There’s a strong tendency of those advocating for “burkean conservatism” to be cultural marxists.
There’s absolutely nothing conservative about gay marriage. Period. It is the end result of a society that has embraced extreme equalism and interchangability. A society ungrounded from either biology or tradition to develop boys and girls into men and women who become dads and moms.
There’s nothing conservative about society of bastards… whether the old fashioned kind or the turkey baster/lab rat ones.
ninjapirate on March 19, 2013 at 9:28 PM
Federalism is a real thing whether Matt Lewis likes it or not. Letting states handle this stuff for themselves isn’t just good politics, it’s the right thing to do from the conservative, small government perspective.
Armin Tamzarian on March 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM
BTW, there is no conservatism without teleology… period.
That is why I don’t really consider the anglosphere right to be conservative at all.
ninjapirate on March 19, 2013 at 9:30 PM
Federalism doesn’t work when states refuse to recognize other states laws. Why should red states recognize gay marriage when blue state refuse to recognize the second amendment?
nobar on March 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
Calling for the abolition of marriage itself and have eugenic copulation based off of the results of cage fighting and jeopardy is more conservative than “gay marriage”.
ninjapirate on March 19, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Don’t need to be courageous — just need to keep the coalition together while these changes are absorbed.
Revenant on March 19, 2013 at 9:38 PM
Timing?
After several episodes, I’ve taken a liking to a Monday night TNT program titled Monday Mornings. Last night, a Massachusetts “married” were visiting Oregon, when one of the husband had a stroke leaving him in a irreversible vegetative state. Fools didn’t have health care directives, Oregon didn’t recognize the husband and the spouse, leaving the patient’s sister as the person to make the decision to pull the plug.
Oy.
Left moral: all states must recognize SSM.
BuckeyeSam moral: get some phucking estate planning done, morons.
BuckeyeSam on March 19, 2013 at 9:41 PM
Lots of good comments in this thread, but this pretty much sums it up:
Federalism can only take you as far as the basic commonality between the red and blue states.
Someone here tell me, besides speaking English (in most cases) and perhaps some common recreational activities that cut across all cultures (Kim Jong Un and basketball come to mind), what do any of us have in common with your average 2013 Democrat any more than say a Canadian? I can’t think of anything.
crrr6 on March 19, 2013 at 9:47 PM
ENOUGH WITH THE FREAKIN’ GAY MARRIAGE ALREADY!
Does every story have to be about SSM? And don’t give us this crap that fiscal conservatism is the most important thing when all HA does is push gay marriage. Apparently, it has become the be all and end all of HA.
Blake on March 19, 2013 at 9:49 PM
I have a valid explanation…
Marriage licenses are issued at the state level. The only reason the feds are involved at all is because socons decided to add special tax treatment to marriage to get more people to marry. Well… that was a mistake.
It should be a state issue.
dforston on March 19, 2013 at 10:25 PM
Get the feds out of marriage.
dforston on March 19, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Marriage always has and should be part of Government for some obvious reasons. Public good civilization is built on, handling of property, inheritance, child custody, etc.
Marriage has been a FEDERAL Issue since atleast the 1800′s when SCOTUS ruled Polygamy and Bigamy Illegal.
jp on March 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Yeppers I truly think the GOP is dying. We have some Repubs who hate socons more than the hate the liberals.
Yeah it was the ‘socons” who instituted the whole social security system with its beneficiary system. It was socons who instituted the insurance system. It was socons that instituted the whole income tax system. You people will blame anything on socons in your own ignorance.
And furtermore, before the 1960′s society in GENERAL thought two parent households raising biological children was a good idea. Now the state has become daddy, how’s that working out for ya?
melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Its also a Federal issue now, no matter what we do, because the Progressives and their allies have made it their end game and battelfield. They want National Acceptance of it and force it everywhere.
They can and will argue that once a contract is made in 1 State, it must be honored in all States and one thing Marriage is, is a Contract.
jp on March 19, 2013 at 10:40 PM
In the end, this is going to be a very short term fix.
Once they finish pushing ‘gay couple marraige’ they will need a new cause. I susppect, after watching Hillary’s lgBt comment, that she will be all in for polygamy. The muslims will ‘jump right in there’ and may very well get involved in some of the early lawsuits. Of course, there are already cases pending in SF to allow polygamy. They even have a case regarding a man and his pet too! (but that can never happen, right?)
Don’t doubt me!
Freddy on March 19, 2013 at 10:49 PM
It will be something but not that. I’m not even sure Muslims have any real demand for it, and since it is mostly associated with female subservience, it will never be a plank on the rat ticket.
They’ll probably continue hammering away again the first amendment: shutting down Christian charities that won’t adopt out to lawfully married gays, etc.
crrr6 on March 19, 2013 at 11:04 PM
We already have a patchwork of competing and disparate marriage laws, even if you lift gay relationships out of it. We have a patchwork of all other kinds of laws too. CCW laws, Driver’s License laws, marijuana laws, all kinds of things. Do some research, decide if the place you want to live will allow you to live how you want and move there.
cptacek on March 20, 2013 at 12:32 AM
Matt Lewis is confused. Federalism is a good conservative principle. Prior to enactment of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights was not applicable to the states. That meant the states could have banned guns (as at least cities attempted to do). The right to keep guns is another conservative view, but I don’t think that dictated we push for a federal solution.
The idea is that the various states/cities/people can rule themselves (even badly). If a particular state wants gay marriage then conservatives have full right to fight against it. If 150 years ago some state had wanted to ban guns, conservatives should have fought against it. But to appeal to a single national power simply because one is losing? Obviously I understand that temptation. If only we could implement a wonderful national conservative scheme on the national level, applicable to all states…what a wondrous world!
Contrary to Matt’s derisive view, it is courageous to stick to principle about our form of government and to fight the conservative fight on the substance. An end-justifies-the-means approach is far from courageous.
The sole conservative perspective for the federalization of marriage for which I have respect is that there should be an national amendment on the basis that male-female marriage is so fundamental to the order or society it should be enshrined as such. Absent that, nothing justifies making it a national issue.
I share Matt’s concern about the federal courts evolutionary posture on social issues. Does that wrong demands we violate our principles and go down the same dangerous path liberals are pushing us down? To quote Kevin McCallister, “I don’t think so.”
The real problem is that the Republican Party doesn’t have the guts to fight. Republicans are too easily embarrassed. There are the few stalwarts, but as a party, the GOP just doesn’t have the nerve.
It is too bad that Matt’s misguided perspective encourages this sort of thing:
Federalism DOES work when states refuse to recognize other states laws! We’ve been doing it for a long time that way. The Full Faith and Credit covers the issue. And while Matt’s fear is valid, there is currently healthy precedent on the point that states do not need to recognize other states’ marriages. So if first cousins marry in NY (where that’s legal) and move to Texas (where it’s a felony) then Texas need not recognize that marriage. That is the state of the law. And it’s worked all this time. But now, as conservatives, we must make everything a federal issue? I don’t think so.
Crispian on March 20, 2013 at 12:58 AM
Maybe you should just take the authors in an alley in the same way you preferred resolving other differences of opinion.
MadisonConservative on March 20, 2013 at 1:19 AM
Why is it so hard for supposed ‘constitutional conservatives’ to understand the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution?
It is impossible under our current Constitution for the definition of marriage to be left up to the states. Because states are required to recognize the validity of marriage licenses issued by another state. Yes, West Virginia can refuse to perform “same sex marriages,” but they cannot refuse to acknowledge the legality or validity of a marriage performed in California.
Therefore, there are only two solutions to this issue: Either we have to amend the Constitution to make an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the case of marriage, or we have to have one national definition of marriage that applies to all fifty states.
Shump on March 20, 2013 at 8:24 AM
Using the example, two same-sex couple married in Massachusetts moves to Mississippi, ===>
Does it not follow that these two would voluntarily abide Mississippi law?
Alternative case, for example, Somalian and Pakistanis moving to the US and only follow sharia laws?
Sir Napsalot on March 20, 2013 at 8:36 AM
To be even more sillier, all you have to do is to say
“I am from Mississipi, I don’t recognize Bloomberg’s big gulp law”?
Sir Napsalot on March 20, 2013 at 8:55 AM
You are so so wrong. Please read my post about how states already don’t have to recognize marriages from other states. If we read beyond “full faith and credit” we learn that it applies only to “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings.” Marriage does not fit any of those categories. A proper discussion of the significance of those categories is lengthier than I care to engage in here. But don’t pretend to lecture constitutional conservatives from a position of ignorance. Additionally, there is a recognized public policy exception for when another state’s act, record, or judicial proceeding violates the public policy of the other state. Now if the Court creates a 14th Amendment right to gay marriage, that hurdle will be a moot issue anyhow. But in the meanwhile, there is ample precedent for why the FF&C clause does not apply to marriage and would be preventable from applying. Must every state recognize conceal-carry licenses from any other state? No. You misapprehend how the FF&C clause actually works.
Crispian on March 20, 2013 at 6:42 PM