I have some reservations about the latest Human Rights Campaign report-card on the Democratic candidates. But this much must also be said: it’s a real achievement to get all the Democratic candidates to commit to repealing that part of the Clinton 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that prevents the federal government from recognizing civil marriages and civil unions enacted by several states for gay couples. It seems to me that if you’re a federalist, and if you believe that the states should decide the issue of marriage rights, then the role of the federal government should merely be to recognize the state laws by providing complete federal recognition of those laws. The word "spouse" should mean in federal law whatever it means in state law. The federal government managed to last over two centuries without dictating to the states what was and what wasn’t a civil marriage. It can do so again. A federal civil unions bill that merely backs up benefits and rights for those citizens who reside in states that grant them equality at a state level is a great idea. It’s conservative federalism at its best.
But the obvious next move must be to ask the Republicans where they stand on this as well. Do they support the federal government deferring to the states on marriage rights? If not, why not? Why should the federal government recognize most civil marriages in Massachusetts but not all?
The Dish 