"Let the counties handle it!" ?

[Athelwulf]

This is a strange idea, but hear me out.

Our country has a federal structure. Local (state) governments have quite a bit of power compared to the federal government, relative to other countries. And we like it that way, probably in part because it gives us an easy solution to tough questions. For every controversial issue, it seems there's always someone saying, "Let the states handle it!". What if this focus on localism is extended further? If some issue in state politics is controversial, why not "let the counties handle it"? This is an interesting (but not necessarily correct) approach I've thought of for same-sex marriage. I don't think it's entirely senseless. The counties issue the marriage licenses, right?

The tactic could be deployed in a state where equality is unlikely to win statewide, but could still have substantial regional support — a poor substitute for full equality statewide, to be sure, but one that could tide us over. When Oregon voted on the issue in 2004, Multnomah County (Portland) and Benton County (Corvallis, Oregon State University) voted against the measure to amend the constitution, and the rest of the state in favor. Oregon is in fact quickly becoming a state where equal marriage might win (and rumor has it we're trying in 2012), but I think the main point still holds: Same-sex marriage could be possible in Multnomah and Benton Counties, since those counties approve of it, but the rest of the state gets its way too.

There are kinks to work out in order to implement this idea in real life. And I don't mean to present it as a "good idea", per se. I'm just airing it to see what people think. One big practical issue is that this can cause a big mess. There's no solid precedent in our country, to my knowledge, for a strong federalist system embedded within another strong federalist system. How would marriage licenses be recognized across county boundaries? And by the state government? And by other states? The Constitution says nothing of full faith and credit to the contracts of counties.

Other practical issues? How about the idea as a whole? Do want? Or do not want?

[GodlessBiker]

1. So, people are married or not married as they travel through counties?

[kenny blankenship]

2. Only people in counties inside metropolitan areas could get same-sex married

If you mapped it out in red and blue it would look something like this.


That's probably being generous. So outside of your little blue metro enclave, you'd be a couple on the run. And if you didn't live in one of those enclaves, or you got married in one but then moved out to the burbs or the country, well too bad.

[Fearless]

4. Sad state of affairs...

Granted much of the population lives in these areas. But also, I'd argue that western Massachusetts (where I live) would probably go the other way, outside of Hampshire County. There are probably more as well.

[Fearless]

3. It would be interesting...

And as good a start as any I suppose... Yet I would remind you that Prop 8 passed in places like San Diego... So yeah...

[Athelwulf]

5. Good points, all.

A federalist system embedded within another federalist system seems like an alien concept, so it's tough to say how it might work. Or even how it should work. Is there any precedent? What about Germany within the EU? Except I guess the EU is a very loose supra-national confederation, or an economic union, or something.

Because of the strangeness of the idea, I suppose it would be impractical, maybe impossible, to try to implement. But no harm in discussion for discussion's sake.

[Toasterlad]

6. We Should Do the Same Thing With the Blacks.

Let the counties determine if they should be able to marry white people!

Honestly, I am so sick of this shit I could fucking punch someone in the sack.

[Athelwulf]

7. So am I. n/t

[sui generis]

9. snork

:loveya:

[sui generis]

8. No, it's a civil right, no matter what day of the week it is.

It's a good idea in theory, but it weakens the debate and relegates a civil right to something as inane as a zoning ordinance.

The right to define your legal family should be yours (and your spouse's) decision alone, without interference from geography, half-assed definitions of domestic partnerships, or the half-baked rights of civil unions.

We are equal. We deserve equal rights. We will have equal rights.

[Athelwulf]

12. Good points, of course.

The issue of geography really bothers me too. Geography should only be a factor in issues where geography is obviously relevant. And geography is obviously irrelevant to justice and liberty.

[Meeker Morgan]

10. One state at a time might work as a transitional period ...

... at least it worked that way with votes for women.

But breaking it down to the county level just makes it a local peculiarity.

[t0dd]

11. What a ridiculous idea

How about our marriages are invalid on Sundays too?? That way we don't offend churchgoers? Or why stop at the county level? If my partner and I want to travel, even nearby, we'll have the distinct honor of our love being recognized on a town by town basis. There'll be patches of discrimination everywhere!

You said it yourself there is no precedent for this, so why should the GLBT community be the first to test it? What makes our committed relationships that less significant?

Disgusting. Truly deplorable.