"One Man's Marriage Trap"

I oppose any Constitutional amendment.. state or federal.. that won't really accomplish the goals for which it is proposed.

I agree with Sullivan on the general issue itself, but I found to have little sympathy for him as his words were torn apart by Katz. At some point along the way, he made a decision that nothing - not even views on federalism and the judiciary on every other subject - should come in between gays and marriage and anyone that disagrees is a hate-filled bigot. In leiu of making a coherent argument, he's thrown patty after patty of silly putty at the wall to see what, if anything, sticks - each indicating a moral imperative that if others miss it's because they are immoral.

I've gotten to the point where I don't even care what he has to say on the subject, and I agree with his general position.

I'm a gay man (and a Bush voter as well), and I would very much like to get married someday. However, I have had it up to here with Andrew Sullivan. I used to read his blog daily, even before Instapundit. However, he's become so shrill lately, and more of a flip-flopper than Kerry, that I don't read his site anymore. I actually experienced some satisfaction when I heard he would stop blogging for a while.

I also think it's pretty foolish to create a Constitutional amendment such as the FMA that has no relevance to most of the citizenry (heterosexuals). The Federal Marriage Amendment is a lot of government moving-and-shaking over a relatively small section of the nation's people.

Given the infinitely more serious problems and issues we face as a nation, I'm rather appalled that the frderal government is even entertaining this idea. Who's idea was it.. in the midst of big debates on Social Security, Iraq, the War on Terror, etc... to divert people's attentions and interests on this sideshow that is the FMA?

federal.. that's how it's spelled.

Mark, if we had an honest judiciary that was willing to confine itself to its proper role, I would entirely agree with you. But we don't. We have many judges--and citizens--who think that the courts' proper role is to impose liberal social views on the unwashed masses.

The real solution to SSM has nothing to do with gays or sex. The real solution would address the real problem: "On a two-thirds vote of each house, the Congress may remove any federal judge from office or vacate any decision of a federal court." If the judiciary won't act responsibly, then it doesn't deserve independence.

I don't think the US Supreme Court presents much of a danger in that regard. It's a pretty conservative group.

Mark,

Baloney on that last. The Supreme Court is most definitely not conservative, as a whole (Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist, to a lesser extent, notwithstanding).

Oh, if only we HAD a good, originalist Court again (actually, pre Roe V. Wade would have been a good place to start)!

That's your opinion, Aaron. You think the court is too liberal.... and I think it's fairly conservative. If there's a clearer expression of our ideological affiliation, I certainly haven't seen it here.

Unlike you, though, I don't think the US Supreme Court is too conservative (the antithesis of your opinion that it's too liberal).

At any rate, the US Supreme Court is not merely the federal version of the MA Supreme Court. It does not represent the "judicial activism" that Ben Bateman was referring to.

Mark,

But, I can argue from an originalist position, which is the true conservative position. Under that correct definition of conservatism (and, one which the Founding Fathers would understand) this Supreme Court is nothing but a make-it-up-as-you-go (except for Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) Court more prone to the "liberalism" of this day than to anything remotely "conservative."

It's not a matter of opinion. It's fact.

How on earth could any court rule FOR unconstitutional and illogical Affirmative Action-racial preferences, FOR Partial-birth abortion, and negatory on a host of federalist issues and call itself (and, be called) "conservative" in any way is to denigrate the term conservative and all it stands for.

5-4, and there are only three who are consistent.

Of course, this then tells you how far out "liberalism" has now become.

The definitions of both "conservative" and "liberal" have changed quite a bit since the Founding Fathers. Arguing from an "originalist" position is relatively meaningless. Conservatives today don't look quite like conservatives of the past... and ditto for liberals. These contrasts aren't necessarily a problem. The country specifically and the world in general has changed a lot since the late 1700's.

As for rulings on Affirmative Action, partial-birth abortion, etc. I cannot argue with you on those as they're strictly a matter of personal opinion. Of course you have a problem with their rulings when they don't fit your belief system... that's the way it goes for everybody with an opinion. Presidents.. both current and past.. have had opportunities (or will have, with Bush Jr.) to nominate judges to the Supreme Court. 2 of the current 9 were nominated by Clinton... the other 7 nominated by Ford, Reagan, or Bush Sr. You do the math on who of those Presidents was likely to nominate "liberal" judges.

I agree that the whole process of how judges get to the Supreme Court is quite indirectly tied to what we, as a people, collectively want. We elect the President and the President nominates the judges.. who must be approved by Congress (who we also elect)... and there are many opportunities along the way for what the people really want to get lost in the shuffle.

I guess if you want to make a Constitutional amendment to address it.. as Ben Bateman was hinting at.. go ahead. I don't know if I'd support it or not.. because it would probably be giving the Legislature more power than it should have. I'm also not sure the country would be better served with this. It would make elections of Senators and Representatives even more hotly contested (and even less about doing what's for the common good rather than what's politically expedient) than they already are and would make any past or current level of partisan bickering in Congress seem like a walk in the park.

Nevertheless, none of this necessarily makes a good case for the FMA.