As I've observed before, Andrew Sullivan's argument in support of gay marriage has been inconsistent. On one hand he argues that it's a matter of fundamental right, on par with opposition to the anti-misogenation Jim Crow laws. But on the other hand he argues that it's a matter of federalism, and that adoption of gay marriage in Massachusettes or California imposes no institutional onus on other states to honor such marriages. Objections to this soft-pedaled federalism ran along the lines that gay marriage could not be extended via the Commerce Clause, because the clause was about regulation of commerce, not regulation of everything that effects commerce. It seems to me that the implications of marriages in one state have a far more significant and certain effect on interstate commerce than six home-grown marajuana plants, so if the intervention of the federal government has already been justified on those grounds the precedent has been set. Once gay marriage is officially recognized and sanctioned in one state it automatically becomes a federal issue.
No, Andrew won't change his mind. He may have been logically inconsistent, but he always knew what he wanted.
(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and The Jawa Report)
Launched by Demosophist at June 10, 2005 09:22 PM