[pnh102]

I still have to question, what in the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to define marriage? Outside of adding an amendment that specifically addresses this topic, I would say there is nothing there that permits it.

[Loud Mime]

So, the federal law does not take precidence?

The people in Arizona now have questions about their immigration law and Obama’s lawsuit.

[svcw]

This post should get some interesting replies.

[ken5050]

Obviously the people on the left who bring these lawsuits that attemtp to stymie the will of the American people and their legislatures, go forum shopping for judges. Is there a website that tracks the federal judges, and how many times they are overturned by the Appellate and/or Supremes. The only way to stop this is to make an example of the most egregious..that is pick one who blantanly flies in the face of the law and the Constitution, and impeach him/her..

[Man50D]

DOMA is unconstitutional but not for the reason Tauro cites. Regulating marriage is not an enumerated power specifically listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Therefore that is a right reserved to the states per the 10th Amendment.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Why are Christian conservatives fighting so hard to "take marriage back" when they are the ones who gave it away in the first place, in exchange for a tax break? Take government money, and you accept government control.

The church just needs to invent a new word to describe a church-only ceremony between one man and one woman. Let the social engineers do whatever they want with "marriage" - it won't matter any more.

[OldDeckHand]

This is my problem with some social conservatives. Just like liberal activists, they want the court to bend to their will, irrespective of how faulty or unconstitutional their legal arguments may be.

While there are some significant problems in both of these MA judicial opinions (there were two cases by the same judge, not one), the Judge's assertion of the 10th Amendment rational in one of those cases is not without merit. Social conservatives don't like this, because they don't like gay marriage or civil unions in any state, so they want to the Federal government to put the states under its thumb. I don't.

This is not a federal issue, it's a state's rights issue. States should get to decide who they do or don't issue marriage licenses to, so long as those guidelines don't violate constitutional protections, like we see in Loving v. Virginia.

Thomas completely ignores the 10th Amendment argument because its too complicated and cumbersome to deal address while still allowing him to achieve his goal. That's intellectually dishonest, and patently un-conservative. Conservatives can't just be for state's rights when it benefits their ultimate goals. .

[ridesthemiles]

Democrat hypocracy at it’s finest.

[Julia H.]

Good. Now, can we get the federal government to take its fungus-crusted foot off of the rest of the States’ rights?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

This federal judge is very crafty. And if you look beyond the immediate core issue, he may end up being on the right side of history.

There is federal jurisdiction, and there is State jurisdiction, and there is the Rights of the People, and the three are not supposed to overlap.

If there ever was a humdinger of a legal debate, this is it.

Cal Thomas cited Roe v. Wade. It was a case of the SCOTUS deciding that States could not intrude so far into the Rights of the People. Whether or not you agree with it, this was the essence of what they *said*.

Importantly, this goes back to the 14th Amendment, the Due Process clause, that says that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. That is, that the States *cannot* violate the Bill of Rights with their citizens.

And this is a critical issue *right now*.

Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion to MacDonald v. Chicago, wrote an amazing dissertation to revitalize the 14th Amendment. It is a masterwork, and will dominate legal textbooks in the future.

Justice Thomas’ argument essentially agrees with Roe v. Wade, except that the States *cannot* violate gun rights. In other words, two “rights of the people” that the States cannot interfere with.

At the *same* time, the individual States are in an uproar, forming blocs against federal power usurping State powers. This is the *second* side of the triangle.

What this federal judge has said is that marriage is under State jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. Even if every congressmen, senator and the president want it to be under federal jurisdiction. And this is a powerful States’ Rights ruling in the future.

So, the bottom line: The courts say the feds can protect the people from the States; and the courts have also decided to protect the States from the feds.

The DOMA itself is just the surface of this fight. And the end result is going to be impressive.