The Republic has had better weeks. It opened with a Supreme Court decision on race preferences that bids fair to institutionalize this injustice in the national life for a minimum of another generation ? proceeded through a Supreme Court decision on sodomy that seems logically to demand a high court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage ? and ended on Friday with the Republican Senate passing a prescription-drug benefit that amounts to the first major national social entitlement since 1974.

Hmmm, doesn’t seem like such a bad week to me. But what do I know?

In the same column, in a section strangely titled “Solutions to Last Week’s Puzzle,” Frum advocates a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

Someday soon, some activist state court ? Massachusetts? Vermont? California? ? will invent a right of same-sex marriage in that state. Immediately a couple from that state will travel to another state, demand recognition of their marriage, and then, when they don?t get it, will sue in federal court. The suit will claim that the failure to recognize their marriage violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each state to give full validity to the legal and juridical acts of all the other states.

….A marriage amendment ought to be the first order of business for Congress when it returns in the fall. Leader Frist can make it happen ? and should be made to understand that conservatives expect him to do so.

My guess is that both sides consider this to be political dynamite and will try to avoid making it an issue. But if it does become an issue, who would it hurt (or help) the most?

There’s virtually no chance of a marriage amendment passing Congress, but I wonder if Republicans think that this is an issue where forcing Democrats to vote against it could hurt them in 2004? And I wonder if they’re right?

I guess we’ll find out soon.

Our ideas can save democracy... But we need your help! Donate Now!