For those following Prop 8
Mike
Watkins Criticizes Nationalizing Marriage
When U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down as unconstitutional Proposition 8--a 2008 ballot measure in California that banned same-sex marriages in the state--he ran roughshod over a key constitutional stricture: the Tenth Amendment, according to Independent Institute Research Fellow William J. Watkins, Jr.<http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=515>
"That amendment states that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, 'are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,'" writes Watkins. Walker's decision in the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, reflects the judge's personal views about the merits of same-sex marriage, rather than the constitutionality of Prop. 8 and, should the decision stand, would nationalize marriage, argues Watkins. In addition, Watkins criticizes the reasoning of an earlier judicial ruling that helped make the Perry decision possible: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas.
Despite his criticism of Walker's ruling, Watkins suggests that the institution of marriage is in need of legal reform. "In the best of all worlds," writes Watkins, "marriage would be privatized so that consenting adults would be free to enter into binding, legal agreements without permission from the state."
"Nationalizing Marriage,"<http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2845> by William J. Watkins, Jr. (The Washington Times, 8/17/10) Spanish Translation<http://www.elindependent.org/articulos/article.asp?id=2845>
"Marriage Proposal: Why Not Privatize?"<http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1657> by Colin P. A. Jones (San Francisco Chronicle, 1/22/06)
"A Marriage Proposal: Privatize It,"<http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=46&articleID=588> by Colin P. A. Jones (The Independent Review, Summer 2006)