Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Gay marriage in Iowa and Vermont

I'm not as much of a hardliner on the gay marriage issue as I am other issues. Generally my stance (idealist to an extent) is this.


1. This is an issue that belongs at the state level, not the federal level. Let Vermont be Vermont, Michigan be Michigan, California be California, Texas be Texas, etc.

2. I'd personally like to see government get out of marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious based institution. From that standpoint, I do not support gay marriage. I don't have to worry about that. The Catholic Church does not support it. Some religions support it. Unitarians and Episcopalians. That's their business, not mine. I do opposed forced recognition of any gay marriage.

3. I do not support tax money paying for gay marriage or unions in broad based governmental benefits. I don't have a problem with governments hiring individuals however who happen to be gay, and if they do good enough where they can write their own ticket and demand individual domestic benefits. The former is collectivism, while the latter is individualism and a good business decision.

4. I support DOMA (Defense of marriage act).

5. I oppose US Constitutional Amendments of any sort regarding gay marriage. The United States Constitution is intended to limit the powers of government, not the people.


Now that disclaimer of sorts is out of the way, two states just legalized gay marriage. Iowa and Vermont. With my 10th Amendment leanings, I don't have a problem or issue with what Iowa and Vermont do on this issue (by result). I don't live there. I do have a bit of intrigue at the way this was done. One state did it the right way, and the other did it the wrong way.

Vermont did it the right way. It was a legislative action and by a vote of their state legislature. They are an elected body accountable to the people. That's the way this issue should be decided. I don't have a problem with it at all. I don't live there. As far as Iowa goes, this decision doesn't belong in the hands of the courts. It belongs in the legislatures or ballot proposals. That was the wrong way to do it.

My one concern though is the conflict between the 10th Amendment and Full Faith and Credit regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. That will be going to SCOTUS at some point in an attempt to force states to recognize another state's gay marriage. A legal argument (not saying I agree with results from a policy standpoint) can be made either way on that. Full Faith and Credit does not apply to everything however. Concealed weapons permits. Some states recognizes another state's Concealed Pistol license. Some don't. Will that happen here? I think we'll find out in the next five years.

Overall, let the legislatures in the states decide.

No comments: