The Presidents
recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment
defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It
seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most
basic institutions.
Marriage
is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter.
Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect
moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion,
from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from
responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government
for moral leadership.
Marriage
and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal
world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle
divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government,
granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has
no role whatsoever.
However,
many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized
in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages.
They argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution
essentially federalizes the issue; hence a constitutional amendment
is necessary.
But the Defense
of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states
to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the
Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect
of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost
universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not
statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address
the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail
into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic
family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything
can be federalized.
The choices
are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal
level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better
approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing
constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage
from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny
and restoring some degree of states rights. We seem to have
forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal
courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government.
The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often
it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.
It is great
comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states
rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny
of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local
rule find themselves demanding: Why should Washington dictate
marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people
of those states decide for themselves. This is precisely
the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for
decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment,
and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely
diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders
wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect
those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which
the left in particular has abused for decades.
Social
problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government
edicts. Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power
over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly
conservative ends. Throughout the 20th century, the relentless
federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural
left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now
can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians
should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural
decline does not lie in a strong centralized government.