The Corner

The one and only.

Response to Ramesh


No, this amendment wouldn’t supercede the 14th amendment, unless it specifically says-so. Your point — that there’s nothing in the Constitution authorizing judges to demand same-sex marriages — underscores my point, i.e., that a restatement of federalist doctrine as applies to same-sex marriages is unlikely to have the impact you suggest. And the irony of what you, and I guess Hatch and the WSJ propose, is that you are not defending states’ rights as you are using a federal constitutional amendment to prevent one branch of state government from exercising its perceived state constitutional authority. This isn’t federalism. I don’t know what it is. But I find such an intrusion into state government at least as offensive to states’ rights as federal definition of marriage.


Sign up for free NR e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review