Roger L. Simon: Giuliani plays the "states' rights" car on civil unions

I don't for a second think Rudy Giuiliani is the slightest bit homophobic - as much of the world now knows, he stayed at the apartment of gay friends after his second marriage went South - but he is a politician running for office (the highest one!) and I was disappointed to read his recent parsing of the new civil unions legislation in New Hampshire (which I support):

"Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. "In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."

It has always struck me that states' rights is a game that people play when they want to. I admit to finding the concept attractive in a nostalgic way, but in the modern world of virtual communication it does seem strange that the same laws don't apply in Los Angeles and Dallas. When job migration is a constant of our lives, it makes no sense that domestic partnership laws are not national. In fact, it asks for trouble.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

They should ideally be national, and eventually I have no doubt same-sex marriage wil the the law in all 50 states, but for now, early in the process, it makes better sense to move forward on a state by state basis until a national consensus eventually emerges. The fasted way to lock in some kind of backlash that actually hurts civil rights would be to force Vermont and Alabama to play by the same rules...right now.

But on the subject of Guliani, I agree, he sounded like the slicked, slimiest side of Bill Clinton in how he is parsing the New Hampshire civil unions.

I think most people agree with Gulliani, like it or not. By and large prefer to leave these things to states.

"I admit to finding the concept attractive in a nostalgic way, but in the modern world of virtual communication"

The "modern world of virtual communication" does not change the wording of the Constitution.

Roger, does it seem equally strange to you that the laws in lower Podunk don't also apply in Los Angeles? If not, why not?

I do wish we would limit the federal government to the powers enumerated to it in the Constitution, rather than the powers do-gooders and power-grabbing politicians want it to have (powers that will in fact give those do-gooders and politicians more power over the lives of other people). For instance, the country would be better off without the federal departments of Education and Health & Human Services, neither of which is authorized by the Constitution. Those services are not enumerated to the federal government, and are therefore "reserved to the States, or to the people." And when non-authorized federal departments are eliminated (I wish!), the percentage of federal taxes they use should also be dropped from the federal budget. The states can provide the services, and tax for them accordingly.

Or, as I said when the Iraqis were working to write a Iraqi Constitution, give them ours - we haven't use it in years.

"... our domestic partnership laws are not national." That's certainly true for common-law marriage.

April 27, 2007: Giuliani plays the "states' rights" car on civil unions

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post