David Frum's Diary, FEB. 27, 2004: Eight Questions For Andrew Sullivan

National Review ^ | 2/27/04 | David Frum

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

On his website today, Andrew Sullivan proclaims his support for the concept that a same-sex marriage license issued in Massachusetts could be void in the other 49 states. That would be a welcome compromise, especially if the Massachusetts courts ever managed to persuade the voters of Massachusetts to approve their judicially imposed social experiment - but let’s first test Andrew with some practical questions that follow from his idea.

1) A Massachusetts man buys a condo in Miami. He marries another Massachusetts man. The condo purchaser dies before he can write a new will. Who inherits the condo?

2) Two Massachusetts women marry. One of them becomes pregnant. The couple split up, and the woman who bore the child moves to Connecticut. The other woman sues for visitation rights. What should the Connecticut courts do?

3) A Massachusetts man is accused of stock fraud. The federal Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenas his spouse. The spouse claims marital privilege and refuses to answer the SEC’s questions. May the SEC compel him to answer anyway?

4) A Massachusetts woman marries another Massachusetts woman. The relationship sours. Without obtaining a divorce, she moves to Texas and marries a man. Has she committed bigamy?

5) Two married Massachusetts men are vacationing in another state. One of them has a stroke. The hospital concludes he will never recover. Local law requires the hospital to ask the next of kin whether to continue treatment. Whom should it ask?

6) A Massachusetts man marries a foreign visitor to the United States. Should the foreigner be entitled to US residency?

7) A Delaware family set up a trust for their son. The son moves to Massachusetts, marries a man, and then gets divorced. The trust is the son's only financial asset. Should the Massachusetts take the trust into account while dividing up the couple’s possessions? If yes, what happens when the Delaware trustees refuse to comply?

8) A Massachusetts woman married to another woman wins a lawsuit against a California corporation. She dies before she can collect her debt. Her closest blood relative demands that the corporation pay the relative, not the surviving spouse. Who should get the money?

I ask these questions to drive home this point: Americans may live in states, but they conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions.

If a couple gets married in Massachusetts and that marriage goes truly unrecognized by any entity outside the state – well then the Massachusetts wedding ceremony is just a form of words, as meaningless as the illegal weddings now being performed in San Francisco. If you’re not married outside Massachusetts, then you are not really married inside Massachusetts either.

Somehow I cannot imagine Andrew and those who think like him reconciling themselves to that outcome. I suspect that “letting the states decide” will over time gradually evolve into a demand to allow the most liberal states to impose their social values on the others through the mechanism of a million petty lawsuits on a thousand different issues. That is why it is necessary and proper to settle this issue on a national basis. And since the proponents of same-sex marriage have chosen 2004 as the year in which to bring matters to a head, they have no fair complaint if the opponents of same-sex marriage choose make their reply in that same year.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

As clear and inarguable a presentation as is humanly possible, to the "states rights"-or-bust advocates, precisely why the resolution of this crucial flashpoint issue can NOT be resolved at the state level.

[RebelBanker]

Excellent article! Thanks for posting this!

[My2Cents]

Great post and comment. We may be a nation of 50 "sovereign states," but we are one people, part of a single society or even single civilization. If the people of Massachusetts want to live as perverts, let them all move to France.

[My2Cents]

I suspect that “letting the states decide” will over time gradually evolve into a demand to allow the most liberal states to impose their social values on the others through the mechanism of a million petty lawsuits on a thousand different issues.

Worth repeating.

[11th Earl of Mar]

bump

[Flash Bazbeaux]

There are many aspects to gay marriage which have yet to be considered. One that has occured to me, that I have not seen discussed anywhere, is the right of a gay man or gay woman who is a US Citizen to bring over a gay fiance or fiancee [who knows which would be which] on a K-1 fiance(e) visa.

These sorts of visas are issued essentially as of right, provided that both parties are "free to marry" [never married before, or lawfully no longer married by the usual means -- this will rarely be a problem since right now essentially no country permits gays to be married]. There is no quota, and they go to the head of the line.

So, bring your gay boyfriend or lesbian girlfriend over to the US - by calling it marriage.

[dts32041]

If homosexuals are allowed to marry and it must be recognized by the full faith clause of the Constitution, why isn't my concealed carry permit recognize outside the state of issuance.

If I have a CCW permit from one state and live in another state, why isn't recognized by the state I live in?

Just asking cause I want CCW in my home state, just to PO the daley machine, but I am not going to mention my home state.

[buffyt]

When I was growing up Divorce and Homosexuality were both considered Abominations.

[walden]

Yup. Depressing, isn't it? We've GOT to get that constitutional ammendment passed.

[bootless]

Excellent piece - thank you.

As Foghorn Leghorn might say: "Son, I say, Son, you gotta think these things through!"

[King Black Robe]

Thank you David Frum. Solid arguments.

[King Black Robe]

Hey, tp....I don't have much time today, but I thought you'd enjoy this article.

[Ditto]

So, bring your gay boyfriend or lesbian girlfriend over to the US - by calling it marriage.

Following the Mass Court ruling, you don't even have to be gay to marry a same sex person. You could start bringing your entire village over one by one. This really has little to do with one's sexual orientation.

Think of other issues too. Say you're a single military retiree on full pension. The Doc tells you you're not going to live too long and once you die, your pension ends. Why not marry one of your best friends so that he can keep getting the survivor benefits for the rest of his life? How about folks that have no real heirs. Their estate goes to the government is they don't leave it to someone. Even if they leave it to someone in their will, the state and the Feds will tax the hell out of it. Why not just marry your buddy so he doesn't have to pay inheritance tax?

[tpaine]

That's always your first mistake.. You imagine you are thinking.

[King Black Robe]

What are you talking about?

[tpaine]

What were you?

[King Black Robe]

See you around. I'm not playing this game.

[NYCVirago]

Good stuff. This last sentence says it all:

And since the proponents of same-sex marriage have chosen 2004 as the year in which to bring matters to a head, they have no fair complaint if the opponents of same-sex marriage choose make their reply in that same year.

[section9]

Outstanding work by Frum.

Neatly points out the trap laid by Sullivan, and deftly handles it by raising the difficult real world questions raised by Gay Activists who desire that a new right be read into the civil law by judicial fiat.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[jwalsh07]

When I was growing up Divorce and Homosexuality were both considered Abominations.

What changed?