[Dilbert San Diego]

Doesn’t federal law trump state law, when those laws don’t agree?

That was certainly the legal framework with civil rights era challenges to Jim Crow laws in the south.

Clearly this judge thinks that “states rights” is the most important issue. He is saying that the federal government is not allowed to define marriage.

[Lancey Howard]

Clearly this judge thinks that “states rights” is the most important issue. He is saying that the federal government is not allowed to define marriage.

There's no connection. States can do pretty much what they want with the way they deal with sodomites, but for its own purposes the federal government doesn't have to recognize individual state laws. It's not even clear to me why this scumbag judge got involved in the first place.

[sourcery]

He is saying that the federal government is not allowed to define marriage.

The Federal government only has the authority to do things within the reasonable ("necessary and proper") scope of the powers it is explicitly granted by the Constitution. The Constitution grants no power to define marriage, nor to regulate who may be married.

[Oceander]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government - a government that heretofor we have all been vociferously arguing is one of limited, enumerated powers - has the power to define marriage? It doesn't, and the federal government shouldn't be engaged in that sort of behaviour.

Furthermore, let's not be too short-sighted about this result. In the first instance, it undercuts the federal government's ability to define marriage to include homosexual couples; and that is most assuredly one of the social-engineering dangers we face from the continued dominance of the fascist left.

Secondly, it provides some persuasive support for the argument that Congress also does not have the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance. There are definite economic ramifications to marriage and to defining who does, and who does not, get to marry - everything from taxes to benefits (including health care) to holding real property (tenancy by the entireties) - and thus the ability of certain individuals to marry necessarily effects interstate commerce. As such, if the Commerce Clause is as expansive as the fascist left would have us believe vis-a-vis Obastardcare, it necessarily follows that it would grant Congress the power to define something so eminently relevant to interstate commerce as the term "marriage."

Consequently, if it is the case that the federal government cannot define the term "marriage" under the powers granted to it by the Constitution, notwithstanding the wide-ranging economic effects of that status, it necessarily follows that Congress also does not have the power to coerce individuals into purchasing health insurance.

Let's take the little victories where we can, and see this for what it is: a brer rabbit moment for our side.

[Polybius]

Doesn’t federal law trump state law, when those laws don’t agree?

Not necessarily. The Constitution trumps Federal law.

The Tenth Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal Government the power to regulate marriage, such powers are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

This Judge is ruling on the basis of "States' Rights".

In effect, the Judge is saying that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to tell Massachusetts that gay marriage in prohibited in Massachusetts.

On the other hand, the ruling also means that it would be unconstitutional to force any other State to recognize a Massachusetts gay marriage.

It is an interesting ruling that is more conservative than liberal as it rolls back the power of the Federal Government and affirms the right of any State to PROHIBIT as well as PERMIT gay marriage.