Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Marriage Clarification

Well, Prof. Frymer has certainly gotten into the spirit of the blog with this...how shall I put it...intemperate posting. But let me clarify, despite Prof. Frymer's observation that, "I don't have a question, because I don't want to hear any attempt to rationalize an answer."

First, I'm for gay marriage. I consider it, as a public policy matter, an unambiguous good both for gays and for society as a whole. If I was a state legislator, I'd vote for it, and if there was a referendum in my state, I'd vote for that (despite the fact I'm against referenda). That said...

a) I don't think homosexuality should be a protected category under the 14th Amendment (so yes, I disagreed with Lawrence v. Texas);

b) I think the best way to ensure that something like the Musgrave amendment will pass is for a state that doesn't want to recognize gay marriages to be forced to because of an interpretation of the full faith and credit clause and;

c) Therefore, I'd rather pursue gay marriage incrementally, state-by-state, despite some of the legal irrationalities of doing so, rather than risk having the whole thing endangered by the passage of a constitutional amendment that would ban it once and for all.

So I'm happy to have my comments on the web for the next 100 years, or whatever. And just a question--who appointed Prof. Frymer the voice of history?

1 comment:

Paul Frymer said...

part of the conditions of me joining the blog, besides the stock options and catered meals, is that I would be the voice of history. look it up--its in the contract.