Even though you asked it of Jonah: No, National Review does not believe that there is a constitutional right to marry, still less that there is a constitutional right to marry anyone who wants to marry you. Andrew Sullivan is making a cheap debater’s point. He’s claiming that our willingness to amend the Constitution to keep the courts from reading same-sex marriage into the Constitution means that we think that it really is there. Obviously that’s not true, and this sort of argument should be beneath him. But since he has never taken conservative arguments about the proper role of the courts seriously before, I guess there’s no reason to start now. And I guess that wanting Sullivan to make more consistent, fair-minded arguments makes me a “paleocon” (or whatever his swear word du jour is).