It is very hard to debate someone who persists in making comments such as the following: “I think (Ramesh disagrees) that if marriage really is a key social institution, defining it in the Constitution is no more anomalous than the many property guarantees, and the guarantee of democratic government, already in the document. (Ramesh must be one of the few Constitutional observers not to see property and other economic guarantees in the Constitution).”
I have never said that it would be “anomalous,” or in any way improper, to define marriage in the Constitution. I have never said word one about the existence of economic guarantees in the Constitution (unless Gallagher is counting one column last year on the abuse of eminent-domain powers). The rest of her attempted refutation of me is similarly off-point. I’m open to the idea that my arguments are incorrect. But that has to be demonstrated through attention to the arguments I’ve actually made, not ones of Gallagher’s imagining.