The Corner

The one and only.



One thing Andrew Sullivan has rarely been accused of is lack of clarity, but I’m in the dark as to what he means here: “I do believe that the right to marry is covered under equal protection guarantees under Loving, but that’s a separate matter than the federalist issue, and would require a sea-change in public attitudes toward gay relationships (a sea-change I’ve been doing my bit to advance). Still, we’re nowhere near there yet – and may never be. I see no possibility in the foreseeable future of SCOTUS applying equal protection to marriage for gays” (emphasis added). He thinks it would be appropriate for the Supreme Court to say that all states should recognize same-sex marriage (as he has said before), but that is a “separate matter” from his support for federalism in this area? Doesn’t this mean that he supports federalism until the moment he can get a national policy he favors?


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review