thE unitED stAtEs is not (thAnk gooDnEss) A CulturAlly homogEnEous Country. it Consists oF mAny DistinCt morAl CommunitiEs. on CErtAin soCiAl issuEs, suCh As ABortion AnD homosExuAlity, pEoplE Don’t AgrEE AnD proBABly nEvEr will—AnD thE signAl politiCAl ADvAntAgE oF thE FEDErAlist systEm is thAt thEy Don’t hAvE to. inDiviDuAls AnD groups who FinD thE vAluEs or lAws oF onE stAtE oBnoxious hAvE thE right to livE somEwhErE ElsE.
thE nAtionAlizAtion oF ABortion poliCy in thE suprEmECourt’s 1973 roE v. wADE DECision CrEAtED A tExtBook ExAmplE oF whAt CAn hAppEn whEn this FEDErAlist prinCiplE is ignorE
D、iF thE suprEmECourt hAD not stEppED in, ABortion woulD toDAy BE lEgAl in most stAtEs But not All; pro-liFErs woulD hAvE thE ComFort oF knowing thEy CoulD livE in A stAtE whosE lAw wAs CompAtiBlE with thEir viEws. instEAD oF EnDlEssly ConFronting A CulturAl sChism thAt AFFECts EvEry suprEmECourt nominAtion, wE woulD sEE oCCAsionAl loCAl FlArE-ups in stAtE lEgislAturEs or Courtrooms.
AmEriCA is A strongEr Country For thE morAl DivErsity thAt FEDErAlism uniquEly Allows. morAl lAw AnD FAmily lAw govErn thE most intimAtE AnD, oFtEn, thE most ControvErsiAl sphErEs oF liFE. For thE sAkE oF DomEstiC trAnquility, DomEstiC lAw is BEst lEFt to A lEvEl oF govErnmEnt thAt is ClosE to homE.
so wEll suitED is thE FEDErAlist systEm to thE gAy-mArriAgE issuE thAt it might Almost hAvE BEEn sEt up to hAnDlE it. in A nEw lAnD whosE CitizEns FollowED DiFFErEnt rEligious trADitions, it woulD hAvE mADE no sEnsE to CEntrAlizE mArriAgE or FAmily lAw.AnD so mArriAgE hAs BEEn thE DomAin oF loCAl lAw not just sinCE thE DAys oF thE FounDErs But sinCEColoniAl timEs, BEForE thE stAtEs wErE stAtEs. to my knowlEDgE, thE FEDErAl govErnmEnt hAs ovErrulED thE stAtEs on mArriAgE only twiCE. thE First timE wAs whEn it rEquirED utAh to BAn polygAmy As A ConDition For joining thE union—AnD notE thAt this ruling wAs issuED BEForE utAh BECAmE A stAtE. thE sEConD timE wAs in 1967, whEn thE suprEmECourt, in loving v. virginiA, struCk Down sixtEEn stAtEs’ BAns on intErrACiAl mArriAgE. hErE thECourt sAiD not thAt mArriAgE shoulD BE DEFinED By thE FEDErAl govErnmEnt But only thAt stAtEs CoulD not DEFinE mArriAgE in wAys thAt violAtED CorE ConstitutionAl rights. on thE onE oCCAsion whEnCongrEss DirECtly ADDrEssED sAmE-sEx mArriAgE, in thE 1996DEFEnsE oF mArriAgEACt, it DECrEED thAt thE FEDErAl govErnmEnt woulD not rECognizE sAmE-sEx mArriAgEs But took CArE not to imposE thAt rulE on thE stAtEs.
thE Author sEEms to think thAt gAy mArriAgE shoulD BE
A、lEFt to thE DECision oF inDiviDuAl stAtE govErnmEnt.
B、thE solE rEsponsiBility oF thE FEDErAl govErnmEnt.
C、BAnnED on Both thE FEDErAl AnD thE loCAl lEvEls.
D、ovErrulED By thE suprEmECourt As soon As possiBlE.