One of the more interesting rhetorical tropes in favor of gay marriage has been the suggestion that conservatives are hypocrites for supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Conservatives, of course, generally support federalism and the diversity of practice among states. Different conditions prevail in different places. Experimentation may yield better solutions. The relative ease of movement among states prevents the practices of any one state from becoming too oppressive. That said, there are numerous limits on state government, both in the original Constitution and from subsequent amendments. States must have “republican forms of government.” They cannot mint fiat currencies. They cannot permit slavery. They cannot issue letters of marque and reprisal. They cannot have their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the federal Constitution.
Federalism is an important means to secure good government. And good government is a means to secure the conditions necessary for people to live decent and moral lives. But federalism is not sacred, nor is it an end in itself. Decent societies have existed without federalism and without popular government. Decent societies in accord with the Christian understanding of morality have not long existed with polygamy, sexual license, or the hitherto unknown “human right” to have gay marriage. If, through the Procrustean and hubristic philosophy known as legal realism state courts undermine the foundational institution of Western Civilization–that being monogomous, legally-protected heterosexual marriage–it is perfectly appropriate to create uniform, national laws to stop the rot and solidify social consensus.
The fact that conservatives want to accomplish this goal through a constitutional amendment shows respect for the Constitution, unlike the voluminous legislation the Congress promulgates with little regard to federalism and enumerated powers. Opposition to these extra-legal and unconstitutional exercises of federal power should not be confused with an uncompromsing belief in federalism. The most dramatic subordination of federalism to justice and uniformity, of course, is the 13th Amendment’s abolition of slavery. Though it undermined a certain view of federalism, this was an advance of conservatism, as it defined a national community whose laws conformed to the natural law.
A constitutional amendment to preserve the contours of marriage is a modest modification to the Constitution as well. Any amendment should deal with changing social circumstances, unforeseen by the Founders. It is no sleight against the Founders that they did not foresee the peculiar reasoning and elite-driven-social-norms that conclude equal rights requires gay “marriage.”
So, when Andrew Sullivan says, “The notion that this limited exercise in federalism poses such a terrible threat to the whole country that it has to be pre-empted by a federal constitutional amendment is simply hysterical nonsense. The Cheney position remains the smartest one: let the states decide. Let them come up with a variety of means to recognize gay couples; let’s see which ones make most sense; leave Massachusetts alone to resolve its own public policy without clumsy federal intervention. I thought that was what conservatism was supposed to be about.” Sullivan really overstates his case and misunderstands the hierarchy of political ends.
Conservatism is not about maintaining one or another political form without regard to its results. Conservatism is about ends. It’s about justice. It’s about creating conditions in which people can live moral lives more easily. It’s about preserving a civilization with certain qualities, contours, and values. It’s about humility, respect for tradition, and suspicion of social “innovation.” Conservatism respects “the rule of law,” the Constitution, federalism, and the separation of powers. But none of these secondary and tertiary principles should trump the natural law and the end of a good, just, and stable society.
Christian civilization has endured tyrants, famines, and a multitude of governments. However, it likely cannot endure the cheapening of its core institution without being significantly damaged. Conservatives are trying to keep this from happening. That is what conservatism is about.
Subscribe To This Feed
