J. Harvie Wilkinson, a judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals who is always mentioned as a candidate by conservatives when a Supreme Court vacancy opens, writes interestingly (and sometimes persuasively) today in The Washington Post against a federal constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages.

Proponents of the amendment say that states need protection from activist judges in other jurisdictions, but states already have this protection through the Defense of Marriage Act and public policy defenses allowed under the full faith and credit clause. As a result, a constitutional amendment is at most a backstop for powers that states possess without any congressional action at all. There is no greater need for such a constitutional backstop here than there is for a constitutional amendment bolstering states’ authority to pass a sales tax, establish a transportation department or support public education.

It’s a consistent argument with those who advocate that Roe v. Wade was an abominable decision that should have been left to the individual states.