Oh, so now they care about State’s rights?!
A Federal Judge has ruled that the Federal Defense of Marriage act is unconstitutional because it infringes upon a State’s right to recognize such ‘marriages.’
A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.
Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.
“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”
This is crap. The state can recognize whatever it wants and can give whatever benefits it wants to its citizens, however misguided that may be.
What this decision does is impose a federal requirement to recognize and match those benefits. This decision imposes, by judicial fiat, that responsibility to financially support through federal tax dollars the misguided judgment of individual states on the rest of the U.S. population.
Because Massachusetts recognizes gay marriage and grants benefits, I have to as well? This is taxation without representation. I think we have been over this territory before.
Of course, this has nothing to do with State’s rights. Rather it is about imposing through the judiciary what cannot be achieved at the ballot box. Everywhere that gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, it has failed. Everywhere.
So the people must get out of the way, even if judges must disingenuously assert the rights of states to do it.
This is why those who have continually pushed for state constitutions to be amended to protect marriage have been ahead of the curve. There are those who have criticized states for pushing these amendments suggesting it was gay bashing and overkill since the DOMA already protected states. But we always knew that wouldn’t last.
July 9, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Can there be any doubt that this is liberal judging, ie, doing the legislature's job from the throne of the judiciary?
Dr. Kagan should take note.
How can she say that, "I honestly don't know what that [liberal judge] label means."
Gerry
July 9, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Legal Positivism strikes again. Had it been a federal law forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages, do you think that judge would have struck down that law on the same grounds? I don't think so…
July 9, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Except that when California voters — like Wisconsin voters and voters in pretty much every other state where gay marriage issues are on the ballot — vote to uphold the actual definition of marriage, state's rights suddenly don't matter, either.
July 9, 2010 at 4:08 pm
We as a nation are in for a Divine butt whipping. Standby folks because that which is wet, brown & stinky is about to drop into the oscillating ventilation enhancement device.
July 9, 2010 at 4:35 pm
interesting Since the judge is relying on the 10th amendment would he have ruled the same way if the case had involved what races could marry?
July 9, 2010 at 7:16 pm
No surprise that the LeftOWackies on SCOTUS were all-so-enthused about States' Rights in the recent 2A decision, too!–because in that case, Chicago banned handgun purchases.
But where are the States' rights about abortion?
July 9, 2010 at 7:46 pm
I've always said that it would have to be a Constitutional Amendment.
July 22, 2010 at 12:56 am
Whether you agree with it or not, the power of marriage is assigned to the states. DOMA should be struck down because it's inherently unconstitutional. An amendment would be a perfectly legal way to circumvent that issue. Besides, the vast majority of states have already banned it in one way or another, and there's nothing in this judgment that affects the laws they have–it just keeps the federal government out of the picture. So what's the big deal?