When endorsing same-sex marriages, President Obama concurrently embraced the principle of federalism and expressed his personal belief that states have the right to define marriage. While this smells like shirking political responsibility, it begs the following question: "Why does the issue of gay marriage deserve special consideration in a concept of federalism?
Why is the same amount of attention not given to immigration, voter registration, health care, or abortion? Suppose Mr. Obama supports a more vital role of state legislation in political affairs. Why does he have his Justice Department sue a state that passed an immigration law to meet its specific challenges regarding illegal immigration? Why don't the states have the right to choose their immigration laws, decide the issue of abortion, or extricate themselves from Obamacare?
The answer is as simple as evident. If it corresponds with Mr. Obama's and his administration's ideology or spares them a political price to pay, they emphasize federalism and the vital role of sovereign states. If they disapprove of state decisions and legislation, they fight and engage in federal prevention.
However, apart from the ideologically driven appreciation of state rights and irrespective of the incumbent administration, the whole concept of federalism seems to need urgent review. Issues require decisions according to their actual material content along the lines of the concept of subsidiarity as an essential principle of good governance. The material content of an issue – and not ideological intent – must determine which level of (political) organization has to legally decide the matter. If individual states face specific immigration challenges, they should have leeway in safeguarding and enforcing federal immigration laws. Profound social and cultural issues – like abortion and same-sex marriages – that concern the entire nation and pertain to all citizens alike have to be subject to federal if not constitutional legislation.
Suppose the states continue to decide issues of nationwide relevance individually, with obviously different outcomes. In that case, the central government will have to reorganize the relations between federal and state authorities, and it will become inevitable to determine who legislates what.
