Withers: Gallagher answers three questions

After U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s Proposition 8 decision, Maggie Gallagher was on news shows taking the judge’s ruling to task.  Sent her media representative an email, requesting an interview. Wasn’t expecting much, but the chairperson of the National Organization for Marriage agreed to answer three questions via email. Here are her responses. She has an open invite to do this again.

In your August 7 Washington Post comments, you suggest  those against gay marriage would push for a federal marriage amendment. Is there really a groundswell for such an amendment and isn’t that premature considering how the Walker decision hasn’t made it through the entire judicial process?

There are a number of conversations going on about how to protect people’s right to vote for marriage. It is not too early to lay the groundwork for these alternatives, although of course it would require a sea-change politically.  We may see such a sea-change, beginning in November. Eugene Volokh is just one of many legal scholars suggesting that some kind of “federalist” approach may happen.

Ted Olson was on Fox News this past Sunday morning. He noted that constitutional rights are not up for popular votes.  Rough paraphrase of course. How would respond to that idea?

I did not see his interview this morning, although I have seen him on other occasions. The idea that our Founding Fathers put gay marriage into our Constitution is a big stretch for most people, including most Federalist Society legal theorists, who are scratching their heads at Ted’s reasoning. As for me,  I don’t believe the Constitution gives you a right to an abortion either, but social liberals, impatient at having to persuade a far more conservative American people, have used the courts to make an end run around the majority views and values on repeated occasions.

NOM is clear there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage; however, the same could be said about interracial marriage, yet the Supreme Court struck down codes banning it. How would you respond to people who see equivalency between interracial and gay marriage bans?

The 14th Amendment bans racial discrimination. That is clear. Nothing in the Constitution requires treating same-sex couples as marriages , or establishes that sexual orientation is a protected class, in my humble opinion, and I hope in Justice [Anthony] Kennedy’s. Time will tell about that.

Gold Poovan

Sent from my Fabulous iPhone 
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s