Gay Marriage Ammendment

Jeff Jacoby writes a column for it, while Peter J. Gomes presents the opposing view. Both are well written and certainly present good arguments. Both concerntrate primarily on whether a Constitutional Ammendment is the correct intrument to resolve this issue. Neither spend much, if any, time on the basic question of whether gay marriage is good or bad, prefering to focus on what the correct method of deciding this issue is. I find Jacoby's arguement that a Constitutional ammendment is needed to be persuasive if one takes the view that gay marriage is a bad thing. Certainly it seems possible, perhaps even likely that the Supreme Court could end up 'forcing' gay marriage upon the country. Sadly though, since I value the 'laboratory of the states' concept and do no believe gay marriage to be the threat many of it's opponants feel it to be I cannot support the current Federal Marriage Ammendment. A marriage ammendment I would support would be something along the lines of: It is left up to the Legislators of the several States, in accordance with their State Constitutions, to determine the requirements for marriages under thier jurisdiction. No state shall be required to honor the marriage of any other state but the Federal Government shall honor all marriage equally so long as the marriage is honored in the beneficiaries state of residence. An ammendment such as this would allow this discussion to evolve over time, would provide test cases as states took different tacts in the debate and would keep the Federal Government from stepping on the rights of the states in this matter. Obviously it would not resolve the 'Massachusetts Problem' as a State Supreme Court could 'force' the legislatures to adopt gay marriage, but I think that the states themselves would be able to handle that just fine. Similarly, it does resolve the claim from the pro-gay marriage side that being married to the person of your choice is a fundamental right that should be protected by the constitution. I am unconvinced that marriage is in fact a fundamental right or that limiting marriage to a man and a woman constitutes discrimination and more than limiting marriage to non-family members constitutes discrimination. Over time, I expect that gay marriage will be adopted by most, if not all of the states. Reaching that decision via the legislatures of the states, rather than the Supreme Court would be a far preferable outcome in my opinion as it would reflect that the pro-gay marriage people had managed to convince the population, rather than just the courts, that this was the best choice.