Much continues to be made of the Senate’s recent failure to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Of course, it was a political diversion from more important stuff. And the rhetoric was predictably partisan; most of it grounded in raw, pandering expedience.
Having said that, it’s worth noting that:
*The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes some ponder the possibility that what happens in Massachusetts won’t always stay in Massachusetts.
*The law of the land (prohibition, separate but equal, restricted voting rights) as we know, can be as protean as a Supreme Court composition and societal mutation. What happens if Congress’ Defense of Marriage Act is overturned?
*Massachusetts Republican Governor Mitt Romney’s quote on the subject still makes the most sense. “Marriage is not an ‘evolving paradigm,'” stated Romney. “It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government, and it should not be redefined by government.”