I have joined a legion of other advocates of the freedom to marry in signing an amicus curiae brief that counsel will file with the U.S. Supreme Court in DeBoer v. Snyder tomorrow.

The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin explains:

Right Turn has learned that an impressive array of Republicans and Gen. Stanley McChrystal will be filing an amicus brief on Friday in support of gay marriage with the Supreme Court in DeBoer v. Snyder. The case will decide, in the wake of cases striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, if states can restrict marriage to heterosexual couples or if gay marriage falls within the protection afforded by the 14th Amendment.

The brief’s signatories include former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, conservative pundits S.E. Cupp and Alex Castellanos, former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein, former Mitt Romney senior advisers Beth Myers and Carl Forti, conservative economists Doug Holtz-Eakin (formerly director of the Congressional Budget Office) and Greg Mankiw (formerly on the Council of Economic Advisers), former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), former homeland security adviser Fran Townsend and former Massachusetts state Senate minority leader Richard Tisei. The presence of an esteemed general suggests that there is no segment of society in which gay marriage is not gaining acceptance. There are on the list centrist Republicans, more libertarian figures and even social conservatives. In a phone interview Mehlman said, “I think the diversity of the people is a reflection of what we have seen which is increased support in every demographic [for gay marriage].”

In the brief, the signatories argue that they “have concluded that marriage is strengthened, and its value to society and to individual families and couples is promoted, by providing access to civil marriage for all American couples—heterosexual or gay or lesbian alike. In particular, civil marriage provides stability for the children of same-sex couples, the value of which cannot be overestimated. In light of these conclusions, amici believe that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from denying same-sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from the institution of civil marriage.” They argue that their belief in judicial restraint nevertheless is informed by their understanding that our “constitutional tradition empowers and requires the judiciary to protect our most cherished liberties against overreaching by the government, including overreach through an act of legislature or electorate. That principle, no less than our commitment to democratic self-government, is necessary to individual freedom and limited government.”

For a long time I have argued, in addition to arguments advancing the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a justification for preservation of same-sex marriage, that asking a court to answer whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution would be a good path forward for the cause of same-sex marriage. This case will attempt to answer a similar question. My general preference would be for government to get out of marriage altogether (see here and here), but in the meantime I have been pushing political levers as well. Here’s hoping the good guys win.

I will post the full, final brief when it’s available. In the meantime, I’m proud to have attached my name to the filing.