Mike Lee Amendment: The GOP Must Fix the Respect for Marriage Act

I must dissent in part from National Review’s editorial opposing the Respect for Marriage Act. I fully share the editors’ concern that the law does not, in its current form, represent “a compromise that protects religious freedom and democratic pluralism.” But unlike them, I would happily support the bill if this pivotal flaw were to be fixed. If, as now seems unlikely, the Senate were to adopt Mike Lee’s amendment, I’d be in.

Before you start writing me an email in all caps, please understand that I’m not making “the conservative case for gay marriage” here — not least because, in this area, I’m not especially conservative. Like Donald Trump, I think gay marriage is “fine,” and I have for a long time. I made the case for gay marriage in my 2014 book, and I’ve been open about my support for it since then. I respect and understand those who disagree with me, but I have a different view nevertheless. Now, as ever, my objections are not to the idea per se, but to the absurd pretense that the 14th Amendment mandates recognition of gay marriage — it absolutely does not — and to the idea that the recognition of gay marriages demands a commensurate reduction in the conscience rights of the dissenters, which, again, it absolutely does not. Gay marriage itself? I’m for it.

About the Author

Charles C. W. Cooke

Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.

Featured Tags

I must dissent in part from National Review’s editorial opposing the Respect for Marriage Act. I fully share the editors’ concern that the law does not, in its current form, represent “a compromise that protects religious freedom and democratic pluralism.” But unlike them, I would happily support the bill if this pivotal flaw were to be fixed. If, as now seems unlikely, the Senate were to adopt Mike Lee’s amendment, I’d be in.

Before you start writing me an email in all caps, please understand that I’m not making “the conservative case for gay marriage” here — not least because, in this area, I’m not especially conservative. Like Donald Trump, I think gay marriage is “fine,” and I have for a long time. I made the case for gay marriage in my 2014 book, and I’ve been open about my support for it since then. I respect and understand those who disagree with me, but I have a different view nevertheless. Now, as ever, my objections are not to the idea per se, but to the absurd pretense that the 14th Amendment mandates recognition of gay marriage — it absolutely does not — and to the idea that the recognition of gay marriages demands a commensurate reduction in the conscience rights of the dissenters, which, again, it absolutely does not. Gay marriage itself? I’m for it.