Amending the Constitution and opposing equal marriage rights are, of course, two very separate matters. But David Horowitz is not easily described as – ahem – a flaming lefty. And he sees that the idea of using the Constitution to resolve highly contentious social issues is a radical idea – and one that the left will use with abandon. Money quote:
Not since the Civil War has the American political system been so polarized, or America’s communities engaged in so comprehensive a cultural Armageddon. In this national hour of crisis, the binding force of the Constitutional framework is more critical then ever.
-Now comes a movement, calling itself conservative but emulating these very radicals in taking the cultural war into the heart of foundational framework, attempting to rewrite the Constitution (albeit by due process) in order to achieve its political goals. I am referring to the movement for a Federal Marriage Amendment that seeks to take an institution previously under the jurisdiction of the states and federalize it; that seeks to take an institution now contested as part of the culture war, and define it constitutionally as a way of resolving the conflict. In other words, it is a movement to achieve a Roe v. Wade decision in reverse.
The alternative is good old-fashioned federalism – allowing one state to try it out first and see what happens. Settled constitutional law, the federal Defense of Marriage Act and 37 state mini-DOMAs ensure that one state’s marriages cannot be applied to another. And when the only state with gay marriage has a popular majority in favor of the reform, you cannot even use the conservative argument against judicial activism to oppose it. Why not give Massachusetts a chance?
The Dish 