A Little Logic

Teeing off on an excerpt from Mayor Gavin Newsom’s appearance Larry King Live, Slacktivist applies a bit of logic:

Newsom highlights the contradiction embraced by those who want to argue both that same-sex marriages are not constitutional and that the Constitution must be amended in order to make such marriages illegal.

If these marriages are not constitutional, then there is no need for the FMA.

If these marriages are constitutional, then one cannot argue that they are illegal or illegitimate.

Conservatives may want to ponder this. Of course, something can fail to be prohibited by the Constitution yet still be illegal — speeding and assault are two examples. Still, pursuing a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage is surely an admission by supporters that they believe that a federal law banning gay marriage would be unconstitutional. So to tighten up Slacktivist’s point, it’s actually an admission that it is [U.S.] constitutional for states to allow gay marriage.

A second issue is whether California’s Defense of Marriage Act (CA-DOMA) is [California] constitutional. Take a quick look at the first paragraph of California’s Constitution:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Do life, liberty, happiness, and privacy combine to make the CA-DOMA unconstitional in California? Mayor Newsom thinks they do. Gov. Schwarzenegger disagrees, making it an issue for California’s Supreme Court, not the federal government, nor religious zealots in Alabama (via Atrios.)