There was an interesting and revealing exchange on marriage and the Constitution between Rick Warren and Barack Obama and then later between Warren and John McCain during Warren's presidential candidates' forum on August 16. First, Obama:
WARREN: Define marriage.
OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix. But --
WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?
OBAMA: No, I would not.
WARREN: Why not?
OBAMA: Because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It's been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that -- about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.
It does not speak well for the University of Chicago Law School (one of the most highly regarded) that Barack Obama was a lecturer there for a dozen years, for this is plainly a very stupid answer, no matter which view one takes of the federal marriage amendment.
I have quoted Obama's entire answer, so I am not being unfair.
Additionally, it will not do for anyone to claim that Obama was hindered by having to provide a quick response. He has undoubtedly previously thought about this question, given how prominent the issue is in American politics.
He really, actually, and without a doubt did tell the audience that he opposed a federal marriage amendment because we have "historically" not defined marriage in our federal constitution. Instead, we have reserved the issue of marriage to the states.
To see how ridiculous an answer this is, all we have to do is apply the stated principle to other issues. If Obama applied his principle consistently, he would have opposed all constitutional amendments. After all, the only reason to amend the Constitution is to include something that has not "historically" been a part of the Constitution.
Applied more specifically, Obama's principle would require him to have opposed the 13th Amendment. Slavery was an issue "historically" left to the discretion of the states.
Unfortunately, John McCain (though not the former law school lecturer like Obama) gave a similar answer:
I strongly support preserving the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I'm a federalist. I believe that states should make those decisions. In my state, I hope we will make that decision, and other states, they have to recognize the unique status between man and woman. And that doesn't mean that people can't enter into legal agreements. That doesn't mean that they don't have the rights of all citizens. I'm not saying that. I am saying that we should preserve the unique status of marriage between one man and one woman. And if a federal court -- if a federal court decided that my state of Arizona had to observe what the state of Massachusetts decided, then I would favor a constitutional amendment. Until then, I believe the states should make the decisions within their own states.
McCain does at least omit the "historically" part of Obama's answer and leaves open the possibility of supporting the amendment in the future. But, for now, his answer is essentially the same.
Federalism is a system. It is not a principle on which to base decisions.
