Interesting column. One of the things that occured to me is that Federalism is actually a weak Hayekian barrier, in that most social change is restricted to a state-by-state change, so there’s no reason to implement a fairness-promoting principle (gay marriage) on the national stage until it’s been implemented locally (Vermont, Massachusetts, Hawaii) and shown to be not harmful. Assuming, of course, that DOMA is upheld, which I believe it will be.
This is what makes the Federal Marriage Amendment so dangerous. It attempts to make these local initiatives impossible to implement, and lock in this policy. It literally is a Dred Scott moment. Fortunately, since it was a cartoonish attempt intended to fail, I’m not worried about it.
One further note on DOMA — I do think part of DOMA will fall (and before the rest of it is repealed and gay marriage implemented nationally). That is the part where the Fed refuses to recognize state gay marriages. I don’t like that at all. It usurps the states right to define marriage that DOMA defines elsewhere.
I’ve been on and on about how Federalism is actually a weak Hayekian barrier for years now, but the only reactions I ever get are blank stares.