Conserva-what?

Some time ago, my friend Mike Hickman (a potential contributor to our site) and I began a discussion on the respective meanings of "conservative" and "liberal." It has lasted for three years now. And, listening to Sen. Inhofe. I understand why.

The Senate is holding a floor debate on the marriage amendment. All of the sudden, conservatives believe that federal action is required to guide the states to the right direction. Alas, where were these conservatives during the earliest civil rights legislation battles. Meanwhile, Democratics (for some reason, far fewer of their web page bios proudly label them liberal) are profoundly afraid of this affront to our federalist system.
Inhofe, "one of the leading conservative voices in the Senate," just argued for the necessity of proposing this amendment today (and why the Republicans are not acting in political bad faith to skip over the otherwise standard process). Several states (I think it's about 17) have law suites pending to declare that the state constitutions require marriage rights for gays. Because of this use of state judicial systems, argued Inhofe, the federal Senate must act now.
He fails to mention that several states are also in the midst of proposing for state-wide vote state constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage.

This, folks, is federalism. Some states can recognize gay marriage, and others may not. Right now, it looks like most will not. Massachusetts is working on their own constitutional amendment. Other states might allow civil unions, a sort of legal rights without the name solution. As we know, conservatives, such as Dick Cheney, have long accepted this federalism; others, like Rehnquist and Scalia, say they do.
As Senator Feingold argued, and as the mentioned Rehnquist argues in his opinion in the recent Newdow, family law has long been the province of the states. The decisions regarding what makes a family should take place as close to those familial homes as possible.

But, for the "leading conservative voice," Sen. Inhofe, this core conservative value takes a back seat. And, to be fair, it takes strange prominence on my side of the argument. But, when I argue for federal power to trump state power, it is where I feel the states cannot or will not act to solve egregious problems. Civil rights in the face of Jim Crow is an example of the latter, funding for social security, et al exemplifies the former.

Here, though, the states are proving to respond just fine to the issue of gay marriage. Inhofe seems to forget that the Massachusetts judges ruled on the Massachusetts constitution, and the people of Massachusetts are responding in kind. Indeed, the whole GOP side of the isle seems to forget state constitutions exist--rather, they impute state law decisions on the nation. Read Bush:

When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution -- the only law a court cannot overturn. A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly -- yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice.

Exactly right. If he's talking about the Massachusetts constitution.