The Independent Gay Forum

Conservatives Who Understand that Constitutions Protect Liberty.

September 6, 2006

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, is a conservative judge who has been on conservatives' short list for the U.S. Supreme Court. So it's worth noting his op-ed in the Washington Post that's critical not only of the proposed federal anti-gay marriage amendment, but also of state constitutional bans on gay marriage. In Hands Off Constitutions: This Isn't the Way to Ban Same-Sex Marriage, Judge Wilkinson writes:

The Framers meant our Constitution to establish a structure of government and to provide individuals certain inalienable rights against the state. They certainly did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights or enact public policies, as the Federal Marriage Amendment does. ...

I do not argue that same-sex marriage is a good or desirable phenomenon, only that constitutional bans on same-sex unions carry terrible costs. ...

It is sad that the state of James Madison and John Marshall [Virginia] will in all likelihood forsake their example of limited constitutionalism this fall. Their message is as clear today as it was at the founding: Leave constitutions alone.

Behold, a principled conservative!

More. Something must be in the water down in old Virginny. Here's another anti-amendment column by another Republican judge, Raymond A. Warren. He writes:

More troubling is the effect the amendment might have on private arrangements such as domestic partnership health benefits now widely offered by major employers in Virginia. ... It would be a rational legal conclusion that such programs create either a "partnership" or a "legal status" that Virginia's courts could not recognize. ... Even private contracts cannot violate the Commonwealth's public policy and it is not inconceivable that the courts could read the new amendment broadly enough to create a public policy against such contracts. . . .

Worse, the everyday documents many unmarried couples (including non-gay couples) use to protect their legal and financial interests would be called into question by the proposal's broad language. ...

All this would leave Virginia at a distinct disadvantage in the global economy.

And he's right. Some conservatives care about liberty, legal equality, and prosperity (and yes, they are linked).  Others, especially social conservatives, are not only bigoted but are as economically illerate as their leftwing counterparts.

by Stephen H. Miller