Maggie Gallagher has an article in The Weekly Standard arguing that we need a national definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and condemning the alternative “federalist” approach taken by Senator Orrin Hatch. (She says that Hatch’s proposed constitutional amendment “is said to be fast gaining ground among GOP senators.” I don’t know who is saying that, and I wish it were true, but it does not track with my own reporting.) I agree with several of Gallagher’s subordinate arguments, and in particular with her refutation of the claim that the definition of marriage has historically been a matter for the states. But I think her criticism of Hatch is largely mistaken.