UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who blogs "The Volokh
Conspiracy," along with several other pro-federalist law scholars
submitted this letter to the Senate Subcommittee on the
Constitution, in opposition to the proposed anti-gay Federal
Marriage Amendment. Among the excellent points the scholars
raised:
there is no need to federalize the definition of marriage. If Oregonians, for instance, choose to define marriage more broadly than citizens of other states do, there's no reason for the federal government to step in. (Nor is such a sweeping amendment necessary to satisfy the narrow goal of letting each state choose whether to recognize out-of-state homosexual marriages. There's no need to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the whole nation, either by banning all homosexual marriages, or requiring them to be recognized throughout the country.)
Moreover, if marriage is federalized, this will set a precedent for additional federal intrusions into state power.
Honest conservatives should take this federalist argument
seriously. Of course, many on the liberal-left side of the spectrum
like to impose their own "one size fits all" solutions on the
country, and have often done so, making it difficult for them to
now stand against the Federal Marriage Amendment on federalist
grounds. That's why getting authentic conservatives to publicly
argue the federalist case is so important.
More Recent Postings