Monday, June 05, 2006


Marriage & Federalist Fidelity

As the fake drive for the Federal Marriage Amendment begins in earnest (chew on that for a moment), I thought this Walter Olson post was appropos.

Olson is a libertarian lawyer, most often associated with the Manhattan Institute. His Web site Overlawyered is great in and of itself as it focuses on how much our trial-lawyer dominated society is screwed up.

But, anyway, in this post, Olson quotes social conservative James Q. Wilson who voices his objections agains the FMA (which technically could be called FeMA, i.e. a constitutional disaster):

The rising demand that every personal preference become a constitutional right is a worrisome disease. People, of course, do have rights; the Constitution and the first ten amendments spell most of them out. That document defines the essential requirements of life and liberty. Adding new invented rights by either a ratified amendment or judicial overreaching is a mistake.
Exactly. In other words, Wilson interprets the FMA as granting men and women a specific "invented" right -- to marriage -- from which, of course any non-male/female combination would be precluded.

Meanwhile, my colleague Ryan Sager focuses on the other side of the federalist coin: He tries to convince his fellow same-sex marriage supporters the wisdom of pursuing their goals through
legislative means rather than jockeying for judicial fiat.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Technorati search
Search Now:
Amazon Logo
  •  RSS
  • Add to My AOL
  • Powered by FeedBurner
  • Add to Google Reader or Homepage
  • Subscribe in Bloglines
  • Share on Facebook