Rauch's and Paul's Compromises

Hoping to avoid a full-scale culture war blowout on the gay marriage issue with an outcome that is too extreme on one end or the other, various compromises have been floated. I don’t think that the FMA will pass and greatly hope that it doesn't. While I support gay marriage in principle, I think that a Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage in the next ten or so years would be extremely undesirable, simply because the nation is just not ready for that yet. (For instance, when the Supreme Court finally recognized the "right" to interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, only 16 states prohibited such marriages; the rest allowed them. When Lawrence v. Texas was decided -- striking down ALL sodomy laws -- most states had already gotten rid of such laws. We will be ready for a Supreme Court decision giving us gay marriage when most states have already recognized such marriages. I know, I'm speaking in practicalities and not principle. In principle -- in an ideal world -- gays should presently have the right to marry in every state).

I’d like to see this battle waged in the states for the immediate future. Jon Rauch, one of the most eloquent defenders of gay marriage, actually proposes an alternative Amendment to the FMA that codifies this "states' rights" view and just might be a compromise that both sides would be willing to accept. The wording of Rauch’s amendment would be:

"Nothing in this Constitution requires any state or the federal government to recognize anything other than the union of one man and one woman as a marriage.”

In Rauch’s own words, “That's an ironclad guarantee that the states and federal government can all go their own ways, without any national court mandate.”

Interestingly enough, Congressman Ron Paul offers a compromise that would accomplish exactly what Rauch’s Amendment would, without amending the constitution: Have Congress use its rarely invoked power to take this issue away from the federal courts.

“The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights.”

Both proposals are not without their problems. I don’t want to see the constitution amended over this, period. And what Paul suggests is a power of Congress that is rarely if ever invoked. If Congress starts getting in the habit of doing this, it could greatly upset our traditional balance of power that has been in place since Marbury v. Madison. Still, both solutions would be desirable to either the passage of the FMA, or an ugly culture war that tears this nation apart. I could sign on to either compromise.