Congratulations to New York for choosing to recognize same-sex marriage. I am not being flippant in any way, for New York has exercised its sovereignty in a manner reflecting the desires of the majority of its citizens. Local, decentralized sovereignty is the cornerstone of the Republic and enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and for good reason: it allows governments to experiment with new ideas without causing much harm; even if harmful choices are made, people can vote with their feet and rob the offending government of its tax base (a wonderful incentive to rethink bad policy). Monopolies may be bad in business, but they are worse in government, and competition among rival governments is the only proven restraint against runaway abuses of power.
I cannot help but wonder, though, whether most people celebrating New York's decision would denounce local sovereignty the moment it worked against them. Would they, for example, support a State's decision not to recognize same-sex marriage? Highly doubtful. The "open-minded" in our midst would be far more likely to dash to the nearest federal courthouse and beg for immolation of the people's will under tortured readings of the 14th Amendment, not recognizing that this undermines New York's own sovereignty and that of every other member of the Union. (In fact this already has occurred in California, where the illustrious David Boies has hammered another nail into the Constitution's coffin.) And it would not surprise me at all if a same-sex couple wedded in New York and sought divorce elsewhere in a bid to force the other State to treat the marriage as legitimate, even if only to destroy it, and even if only to score a political victory.
If you want freedom, you must be willing to tolerate outcomes you dislike. But "tolerance" is merely a popular slogan with no traction, much the same as "diversity."
I cannot help but wonder, though, whether most people celebrating New York's decision would denounce local sovereignty the moment it worked against them. Would they, for example, support a State's decision not to recognize same-sex marriage? Highly doubtful. The "open-minded" in our midst would be far more likely to dash to the nearest federal courthouse and beg for immolation of the people's will under tortured readings of the 14th Amendment, not recognizing that this undermines New York's own sovereignty and that of every other member of the Union. (In fact this already has occurred in California, where the illustrious David Boies has hammered another nail into the Constitution's coffin.) And it would not surprise me at all if a same-sex couple wedded in New York and sought divorce elsewhere in a bid to force the other State to treat the marriage as legitimate, even if only to destroy it, and even if only to score a political victory.
If you want freedom, you must be willing to tolerate outcomes you dislike. But "tolerance" is merely a popular slogan with no traction, much the same as "diversity."
No comments:
Post a Comment