The American Spectator : It's Not Its Business

Text Size

It’s Not Its Business

By Aaron Goldstein on 2.24.11 @ 6:07AM

The federal government shouldn’t defend marriage.

After spending its first two years (and change) in office arguing in federal court in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Obama Administration abruptly did an about face and announced it will no longer do so. To be precise, Attorney General Eric Holder advised Congress that the Department of Justice will not defend Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

Although the federal government will no longer defend DOMA in court, Holder noted the law will continue to be enforced until either a higher court strikes it down or it is repealed by Congress. California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is planning to introduce legislation to do just that. If Feinstein is successful in getting repeal legislation passed through Congress, it could prompt House Republicans to introduce either a new version of DOMA or it could also re-ignite efforts to amend the Constitution with a Federal Marriage Amendment. Either way the culture war is far from ending in a truce, especially now that President Obama has placed himself at the center of it. Some might say he has placed himself well to its left.

I agree with Ed Morrissey when he states that President Obama “has finally realized that his allies are thinning, and he figures that he needs to start pandering to those still on his side. It could certainly help distract from the budget fight, if Republicans take the bait.” And no doubt there are some Republicans who will bite. Now one can take the Obama Administration to task for both a lack of consistency in this matter and for its political motivations. Nevertheless I think it has made the right decision even if it was made for all the wrong reasons. My argument is twofold.

First of all, why is the federal government in the business of defending marriage? Bob Barr, the former Georgia Republican Congressman who ran for President in 2008 on the Libertarian Party ticket and the man who introduced DOMA in 1996, would eventually publicly come out against his own legislative creation. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times in January 2009, Barr wrote:

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

Whether you believe in the traditional definition of marriage or whether you believe that marriage should be broadened to include same-sex couples, it is a question that ought to be settled at a local, county, and state level. If Maryland’s legislature decides to recognize same-sex marriage then fine. If voters in Maine decide in favor of traditional marriage then also fine.

Secondly, I am not making the argument that marriage isn’t worthy of defense. What I am arguing though is that if one does defend the institution of marriage, then one must bear in mind that matrimony is only as good as the two people who enter into it. As with any contract (and that’s what marriage is), there is no guarantee the two parties will be the better for it and in this day and age it is far less difficult for one or both parties to extricate themselves from such an agreement if there is no agreement to be had.

It is thus entirely possible that a couple of the same sex might very well be better suited to marriage than a couple of the opposite sex. Undoubtedly, there are many who would consider such a notion abhorrent and blasphemous. But Congress cannot legislate morality. Government cannot make you a good person. Marriage and family are important parts of our lives. Perhaps even the most important part of our lives. As such it is a part of our lives far too important to be left to the whims of Washington.

About the Author

Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (181) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 2.24.11 @ 7:00AM

Mr. Goldstein states that you cannot legislate morality. He is wrong. Murder is immoral, and we have laws against it. Rape is immoral, and we have laws against it. The same for slavery, theft, polygamy, pedophilia, and so forth. All are moral issues.

If the government can have no say in the moral issue of marriage, then the government can have no say in the moral issues I listed above.

The goal of the "gay marriage" crowd is the destruction of the family - period. Even in states which have crammed gay marriage down the publics throats (the issue has NEVER been approved by voters), there has not been a rush for gays to marry.

The normal lie is that marriage is discriminatory. This is a huge lie. Any man is free to marry any woman provided both agree, neither is already married, and both are of legal age. There is no discrimination involved.

AS Lurker| 2.24.11 @ 7:25AM

I totally understand where you are coming from on a personal level, but most of the things you listed infringe on another's life or liberty, which are covered in the Constitution. Obviously, pedophilia is not acceptable due to the presumption that a child does not have the maturity to willingly and knowingly enter into a physical relationship. If gay people are allowed to marry, that does not infringe on your life or liberty. If you are against it, work on that locally. If you are for it, work on that locally. Then your laws reflect your local values. On a personal note, I am no fan of gay marriage, but I cannot justify why the federal gov. should be involved there. If the world is going to pot morally, it is not the job of the fed gov to save it, it is for us to clean our own back yards.

Wade Smith| 2.24.11 @ 8:05AM

This isfa your assumption, which is not supported by history, that the degradation of marriage does not have an adverse effect on human society.

When the fabric of society, marriage and family, is tron we are all hurt.

Wade Smith| 2.24.11 @ 8:05AM

This isfa your assumption, which is not supported by history, that the degradation of marriage does not have an adverse effect on human society.

When the fabric of society, marriage and family, is tron we are all hurt.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:41PM

Not changing the definition of marriage in no way infringes on the rights of gay people. They can do the same thing either way. The difference is in the advantages a couple gets by saying they are married. As I say in another post if we can't legislate morality, then we must eliminate all incest laws.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:20PM

You prove aaron's point for him. Murder and rape are "moral legislation" yet people still commit these acts.

Bottom line is, government shouldn't be subsidizing gay or straight marriage in the form of "tax breaks" (again, subsidies), which is what a lot of this is about, at least from what I get from talking to a gay conservative friend of mine.

He says he tries to tell other gay people to just go conservative and "live your life."

I would suggest that more "Conservatives" should refer to the question asked by Barry Goldwater at the end of Chapter 1 in "Conscience of a Conservative.": "Are we maximizing freedom?"

If you're not going to approach EVERY issue with this question in mind, please do Conservatism a favor by not associating yourself with it. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth like a democrat. You're either for freedom or you're not. The fact that we get taxed to subsidized to pay for home interest and children of married couples is an infringement on Liberty. Period.

And personally, I believe marriage is a Christian Institution, not a government institution, but that doesn't change the fact that Liberty is Liberty and Freedom is Freedom.

"Is any man free if another man can deny him the exercise of his freedom?" --AuH2O

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:25PM

Speaking of course as a single man. I would add that, just like unions, the support for these subsidies is strengthened through people becoming dependant on them.

AS Lurker| 2.24.11 @ 7:10AM

Thank you for this article. I have been trying to articulate this point (on a number of issues) for some time. The only way to reduce federal power is to REDUCE FEDERAL POWER. I think the morality game is a distraction tool used by both parties in order to deflect focus from the fact that the federal government has far, far overstepped its limits. These sorts of issues are not solveable on a federal level and only serve to keep the populace distracted and divided. Yes, it is a long, tough, ugly battle to disentangle the federal government from issues that are not Constitutionally mandated, but it is our only hope.

Wade Smith| 2.24.11 @ 8:02AM

The destruction of marriage has been ongoing since the 60's and the 'war of poverty'. I agree that with your assertion that the federal government should not be involved in our lives.

It should not be involved in my life, my health, me work, my retirement, etc. Social Security is a ponzi scheme and is failing, not will fail, but IS failing.

Let the states through the people, NOT the courts, decide their state level marriage laws. And let all other states decide IF they will recognize other states' marriage laws.

But then Article IV of the US Constitution states Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

jolizoom| 2.24.11 @ 10:50PM

Which is exactly why the Federal Government needs to uphold DOMA--If one state legalizes gay marriage, then it becomes legal in every other state by default, even though it is still against the wishes of the majority of citizens.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 2:03PM

"Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we've got to stay together. We've got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh's court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that's the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity." -MLK

P.Smith| 2.24.11 @ 8:02AM

But Congress cannot legislate morality. Government cannot make you a good person.

This may be true and I am not arguing the point, but the fact remains that every single law passed in every single country is in fact attempting to legislate morality one way or another.

Occam's Tool| 2.24.11 @ 11:20AM

Actually, given our demographic crisis, we need to uphold public traditional morality.

potkas7| 2.24.11 @ 8:14AM

Maybe Congress can't legislate morality, but they can legislate. The constitutionality of a duly enacted law is not the President's call, nor is it the Attorney General's role to second-guess the legislative law-makers. Their duty is to enforce duly passed laws until the courts decide the question of whether the law passes constitutional muster. This is not a government of men.

A. C. Santore| 2.24.11 @ 9:05AM

I'm with potkas7 on this one. Let us not forget that both the president and the attorney general took an oath of office, now obviously meaningless.

The president swore this on a stack of bibles: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

First, by not allowing the executive branch to uphold a law, he is not executing his office. Second, by not enforcing a statute duly made law, he is not "preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution."

I don't know how to explain or justify his usurping the role of the Supreme Court by declaring a law unconstitutional. He has taken the presidency too far from the role the Constitution defines.

Holder's oath is no less specific, and no less broken. He swore that he would "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and that he would "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

We now have a new motto to replace "In God we trust."

"The Constitution? Are you serious?"

AS Lurker| 2.24.11 @ 9:16AM

I have to say, from a purely legal standpoint, I agree with you. If this law is in place, he swore to defend it. Until it is changed or struck down, it is his duty. He cannot just unilaterally "undo" the law. I just wish it were not a law, because I do not think the fed gov has a role there and I would just love it if we could get back to what I have seen termed "Constitutional purity."

Ret. Marine| 2.24.11 @ 10:11AM

I too have to concur with your post, here is proof We the People have entered into official tyranny when the executive branch somehow decides what laws they are going to enforce and what they are not. It is not in this pretender-n-thief preview to decide who they will or will not defend. Of course if he actually was a Constitutional Scholar, and was actually acting in the capacity and interest of the American People, our laws, etc. and can prove beyond any one's shadow of doubts he actually a citizen of these United States of America, serving as the President I might ask WTF. Some how acting as the leader of the unions, special interest and against the laws of this land, I still remain doubtful of his motives and actions. IMPEACH this turn-coat already.

Tom Osterman| 2.24.11 @ 8:25AM

The argument that marriage is none of the government's business has merit. Now ask yourself what happens when some pastor of some mainstream church refuses to marry a gay couple. I promise you, Freedom of Religion will go into the trash can.

Look at what abortion advocates do to health providers who won't participate in abortions if you don't believe me. It's not about rights, it's about using political muscle to cram this down the People's collective gullet. Obama is doing his part by not defending the law. Sort of like it doesn't enforce civil rights laws in Philadelphia.

KyMouse| 2.24.11 @ 10:20AM

Mr. Osterman, in addition to losing their Freedom of Religion, I think churches who refuse to marry same-sex couples will lose their tax breaks. Most, if not all, churches provide food, clothing and other benevolent services to the poor. If churches lose their tax breaks, many of them will have to cut back on, or cancel, those safety-net services. Communities should think long and hard before they let that happen.

Missouri David| 2.24.11 @ 6:54PM

I don't understand why Christians don't stand up and demand that the Bible be taught in our schools? Didn't we lead the industrial nations in the 1950's test scores? Sure, Marriage should not be an issue for Fed gov't, but when we have a few trying to impose their will on the majority, thereby accepting socially an abomination, than collectively the Moral right ought to stand up! Look what the NEA,biggest Lobbyist, has done to our schools and they're hand in glove with liberal Democrats. Thanks and Merry Christmas

With God all things r possible| 2.24.11 @ 8:31AM

Get this wretch - Goldstein - out of Spectator at once.

The family unit is the building block of society, the atom, that makes higher compounds possible. All levels of government recognize that in some fashion. Only the family produces, trains and prepares the next generation of citizens. People who could but don't raise children, and a subset of them who spend their lives on their own pleasure and/or are apologists for those who do (that's Goldstein) are consumers in society and not producers. After they wipe their mouths, they say, "Who needs farmers anyway?"

Why is Goldstein here? He ladles out the unexamined narcissism of the clueless teenager. He is using up space.

With God all things r possible| 2.24.11 @ 8:45AM

I take back "wretch" - sorry, carried away.

Al Adab| 2.24.11 @ 10:24AM

"... that saved a wretch like me."

YeloStalyn| 2.24.11 @ 9:47AM

He seems to support traditional marriage... he just doesn't support the FEDERAL government being involved because, well, that's unconstitutional (it's not a specified area of fed. jurisdiction). Since it is thus unconstitutional, it would be immoral for you to want the fed to ignore our founding philosophy and law in order to promote those causes which you support rather than support them in the legal, and therefore more moral, arena... the state and city.

REASON must be used in conjuction with conviction. To let only one guide you is dangerous.

None of that, mind you, means I disagree with your assertion on the importance of marraige. Just your willingness to disgreguard our laws that are allowed by God (see the book of Romans) to be over us in order to promote your views (no matter how right or wrong they may be).

With God all things r possible| 2.24.11 @ 1:17PM

Thank you. Yes, God gave us reason and he expects us to use it. But the battle is where it is, at this point. I think retreating in the face of the assault on DOMA would be ill-advised.

It really doesn't matter where we draw the line; the people who have violated their consciences, and whose consciences then propel them to silence traditional morality, will find us wherever we are. They will try, then as now, to compel our approval and silence the truth that we speak. That is where the real irrationality may be found.

So why delay? What better battleground would you pick? I say that DOMA is as good as anywhere, and on this hill we should stand. Let us unfurl our colors and take position shoulder to shoulder. We may yet prevail.

"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, but the righteous are bold as a lion." --King Solomon, Proverbs 28:1

YeloStalyn| 2.24.11 @ 2:24PM

To me, it matters a great deal where you draw the line. As a nation of laws, not of men, we are bound, moraly, to uphold those laws in the face of the desire's of men. As such, it would be wrong to uphold, even a just cause, on unjust grounds... in this case defend marraige at the federal level. We must remain consistant in our philosophy and not simply be "issue" people. We don't get to pick and choose what is right and wrong, instead we must be on a foundation of what is right and let that lead is in all areas.

With God all things r possible| 2.25.11 @ 10:06AM

See Quin Hilyer's rejoinder to this article.

Handy| 2.24.11 @ 10:58AM

I agree with you on Goldstein. His articles are rarely satisfying to read. He often trips my "Gaydar," just as Steve Chapman of The Chicago Tribune and Reason Magazine does.

However, I disagree with you that the "family unit is the building block of society, the atom, that makes higher compounds possible." The building blocks of society are individuals, not families. Individuals are atoms; families are compounds. Sodium and Chlorine are elements (atoms); NaCl (Salt) is a compound (molecule).

Without strong individuals, there can be no strong bonding between the elements of society. However, since the advent of "family friendly" legislation from the income tax code, through mandated child care facilities at work, etc., etc., we have weakened the atoms so that they can no longer form strong bonds. Weaker atoms are bonding to form unstable compounds. And, they are doing it at the expense of stronger atoms. Simply stated, the wrong people are getting married, and the right ones are eschewing it. Why?

Because single people are paying too much to support the institution of marriage. Higher tax rates. No deduction for imbedded property taxes in their rental payments. No child tax credits. On and on and on. Plus, single people are not pigging-out at the public trough to the extent that families do: Public schools, SCHIP...

In economics it is axiomatic that when something is subsidized, there is more of it, and that applies to marriage. Responsible people look at their finances, and many conclude that they can't afford to raise children in today's world. So they pass, even if they wanted to form a strong bond with another atom. Irresponsible people have no regard for others, so they go ahead and take the "bennies" of "free" education and all the other stuff, including access to the divorce courts, in order to dissolve the weak molecules. These cost everyone billions, but are never used by single people.

There are so many other iniquities that single people have to endure in today's "Enlightened" world that they cannot be listed. Not all are explicit, either. Have you ever heard a boss say that you must work over the weekend, because, "So-and-so has a family and should spend more time with the kids?" Do single people get commensurate raises based on performance, or do married people get bigger ones based on the all-encompassing concept of "Need."

Sorry to be so long, but here's the bottom-line: We have so over-subsidized marriage and families that even the gays want to get on the gravy train. If all the royalties bestowed on marriage and families were eliminated, we would solve two problems at once.

First, we could stop forming all those weak molecules by eliminating the goodies catalysts. We would also encourage strong single atoms to accumulate enough wealth to consider bonding with another atom to make a stable molecule. Second, the whole "Gay Marriage" matter would subside into the floor boards, where it belongs

With God all things r possible| 2.24.11 @ 1:08PM

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You make a good analogy. There is also the one about the "nuclear family" with mom, dad & kids at the center, etc.

A little more in this vein, maybe the "nucular" family is the one predominant in the South where the neutrons sit on the porch and the protons bring them sun tea.

Handy| 2.24.11 @ 1:36PM

There is another important point in chemistry: Like atoms cannot mate. As in, there is no such thing as a C2 molecule. In humans, there can be no M2 or F2 compounds, either.

And, just to make things clear, I prefer "nucular." It was a running joke at Fermi Labs. Even the scientists ended up pronouncing it that way.

With God all things r possible| 2.25.11 @ 10:10AM

Seven diatomic elements do exist, says Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What.....1Ez2kA5xZ:

* Hydrogen (H2)
* Nitrogen (N2)
* Oxygen (O2)
* Fluorine (F2)
* Chlorine (Cl2)
* Iodine (I2)
* Bromine (Br2)

None of these, however, are organic compounds with Carbon and thus none of them can build or sustain life on their own.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:48PM

What about family units with an alcoholic father that beats his wife? Your ideas are a mile wide, but only an inch deep.

P.S. Brush up on what Conservatism means. You sound like a progressive.

Handy| 2.24.11 @ 6:35PM

What about frigid wives who sleep around for a couple of beers?

Marriage should be abolished.

With God all things r possible| 2.25.11 @ 10:19AM

Pathology, while an important branch of medicine, is not used toguide reengineering of the body. Similarly, social pathologies--and many of them exist, sadly--should not guide social engineering. That is the conceit of progressives. And no, I am not a progressive. No one who knows me would ever think I am.

Here's the bottom line: children are best off with a mommy and daddy who love each other and are faithful to each other. Studies show it. My own family background shows it. Common sense confirms it. Personal experience of some whose parents fell short does not invalidate it.

Further, those who are the most committed to the Judeo-Christian ideal of marriage upon which this country was settled and founded are also those who provide the most encouragement, help and support to others in marital or relational difficulty.

Coal Miner's Son| 2.24.11 @ 8:32AM

Concerning states that allow same-sex marriage: I've read of churches being sued for "discrimination" for not renting out their properties for same-sex weddings. If this is not an assault on religious freedom, I don't know what is. Further, I fear with the repeal of DADT what comes next. The military will have to allow gay couples equal access to married housing. Then, what happens if a couple from California is transferred to Virginia or some other state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage? Will the courts then rule that one state's definition of marriage is now unconstitutional when they don't get all the same "rights" they had before (which is already happening in some places). Anyway, there goes the 10th Amendment. What about gay soldiers that meet someone in say Korea, Europe or Japan. Will they then begin to challenge the policy that allows a straight servicemember to bring home his spouse on a visa as discriminatory?

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 9:16AM

The Federal Government is supposed to be a government of limited and enumerated powers. If the Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power to legislate in a given area, then the Congress does not have the power to legislate in that area. That's a basic principle that I see frequently discussed in detail and strenuously advocated in the comments on AS.

Applying that principle to this issue, we find that the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the authority to regulate family matters. Period. The Congress has no more legal authority to define marriage than it has to establish an age of consent to marry, to limit degrees of kinship in marriage, to establish grounds for divorce, to set up procedures for determining custody of children or division of property upon divorce, etc. Congress does not have the power to define marriage, and therefore when it enacts a law purporting to define marriage, it has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution.

This is the same argument, by the way, which leads to the conclusion that the Federal Govt. - and by extension, the Federal Courts - have no authority to create a "right" to abortion. The bearing of children is a family matter, and therefore is simply beyond the limits of the Federal Government's power to regulate.

I am ardently and strenuously opposed to same-sex marriage. But I am NOT in favor of violating the fundamental principles of the Constitution in order to grant Congress the authority to define marriage simply because, at this point in history, they choose to define it the way I think it should be defined. For those of you who are in favor of this, bear in mind that if you grant THIS Congress the authority to define marriage, you will also be granting future Congresses that authority as well. THIS Congress may define marriage the way you wish. The next one may use the power YOU gave to define marriage in some other manner, or theoretically, to outlaw it altogether.

Allowing the Congress to exceed its authority in the pursuit of goals we view as beneficial is no less tyrannous than allowing it to exceed its authority in pursuit of goals we view as detrimental.

Michael L. Hauschild| 2.24.11 @ 10:28AM

Nailed it.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:49PM

Yes he did. If this were facebook I would click the "like" button.

Handy| 2.24.11 @ 11:29AM

Good post. Now let us get the Feds out of punishing singles and coddling married people through the tax code and other legislation.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:50PM

Right on target, sir.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:44PM

Then the federal government should have no rules regarding marriage or provide benefits to spouses. You can't have it both ways.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:50PM

Word up! No subsidies!

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 1:58PM

Who said I wanted it both ways?

L. E. Powers| 2.24.11 @ 2:25PM

Big E, yours is a thoughtful post, but I think you miss one point. The reason DOMA was passed was to clarify the limits on the full faith and credit clause, which requires the various States to honor contracts from other states. It is within Congress's right to pass laws that clarify Constitutional limits, as provided for in the Constitution.

The point of DOMA was to ensure that somebody's experiment with social engineering did not force the entire country to adopt the same practices.

L. E. Powers| 2.24.11 @ 2:27PM

Sorry, my post got jumbled. I meant to reference Article 6, Section 1 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the right to define the limits of full faith and credit.

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 2:48PM

I presume you mean Article IV, section 1, which provides as follows:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It limits what Congress can do, but Congress cannot limit the scope of the Constitution. If a same-sex couple married under the law f another State, and then moved here to NC - where there is no same-sex marriage - they would still be legally married. NC would have to recognize that marriage, but there is NOTHING about "full faith and credit" which would mean that NC would then have to allow other same-sex couples to marry in NC.

By that same token, in NC, first cousins can legally marry. That is not the case in all States. Should a set of first cousins marry in NC, and then move to a State that does not allow marriages between people that closely related, then the other State would have to recognize the validity of the NC marriage, even though a similar couple in that State could not legally marry.

Full faith and credit does not act to amend or change the laws of any State.

L. E. Powers| 2.24.11 @ 2:56PM

Thank you for the correction on the reference. My brain was misreading Roman Numerals.

Actually, many states allow 1st cousins to marry. The Full Faith and Credit Clause allows their marriages to be legal in other states, where they did not marry but live a married life (a distinction).

If you read the last half of your own quote, "...And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof...," Congress is expressly given the right to regulate the extent to which full faith and credit must be extended.

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 4:16PM

I disagree. That last clause allows Congress to provide for the mechanism by which an act of another State may be proved (such as, whether documentary evidence of a marriage is required, or only the testimony of a witness not a party to the marriage), and the effect - i.e. benefits or detriments - to having proved the act of the other State. In other words, it allows Congress to establish uniform procedures for proving the acts of other States. It does not grant Congress the authority to legislate in areas that the Constitution does not otherwise provide.

For example, State laws pertaining to the division of property after divorce vary considerably from State to State, but the full faith and credit clause requires each State to recognize the property settlement decrees of other States. Say a couple divorces in State A, and in the course of that Divorce, the Husband is awarded the vacation home located in State B under a rule of law which does not exist in State B. State B must recognize the decree of State A regarding the vacation home, even though the decree itself would be illegal under the law of State B. Are you arguing that the Congress' power to, ". . . prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof . . ." means they could enact a law which mandates uniform division of property rules nationwide despite the fact that the Constitution clearly does not give them the authority to do so?

Another example would be in the enforcement of judgments. North Carolina for "Alienation of Affection" and "Criminal Conversation" - also known as adultery. To my knowledge, no other State still allows such actions. If someone successfully prosecutes such a claim under NC law and obtains a judgment, the "full faith and credit" clause permits them to enforce that judgment in another State, despite the fact that State does not have similar claims in its laws. Are you arguing that the Congress' power to, ". . . prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof . . ." means they could enact a law which would either mandate that all States have such claims in their laws, or that no States may have them, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly does not give them the authority to do so?

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 4:35PM

The Big E,

The tactic of the supporters of same-sex marriage has been to explicitly use the full faith and credit argument to force recognition in other states. Notice the number of people who married in Massachusetts from out of state.

I don't know of anyone checking marriage licenses when two people rent or buy property, but the problem presents itself not when someone seeks to have the judgements of one state perfected in another, but when one seeks one state to act in accordance with the laws of another. It's a bit akin to saying that because prostitution is legal in Nevada, that it should be legal in all states or, at least, that Nevadan's should be allowed to engage in prostitution in Texas because their behaviour is legal in Nevada.

So what does a couple married in Massachusetts do when they live and own property together in Texas and wish to get a divorce? Does Texas now have to follow Massachusetts law in the family court system? What standing does a couple have to sue in a court which does not recognize their marriage? How does one sue to enforce or dissolve a contract when the contract is does not exist in the eyes of the court.

The DOMA was intended to address these questions.

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 5:24PM

"Does Texas now have to follow Massachusetts law in the family court system?"

No. Texas follows Texas law, just as they would if the couple had married in another state when they were too young to legally marry in Texas, or if they had married in another state but were too closely related to marry in Texas.

I understand what the supporters of same-sex marriage are doing, but I disagree that the way to address that is to eviscerate the Constitution. If we say the Congress has the power to define marriage when the Constitution provides it with no such power, then we undermine our own arguments against other Congressional power grabs. Such as, oh, say, Obamacare. We cannot cherry pick what we want the Congress to have the power to do, and when we do, we make ourselves Constiutional hypocrites. Congress either has the authority to regulate in an area or it doesn't.

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 7:27PM

Big E,

If Texas follows Texas law they say the couple is not married and, therefore, cannot divorce. That is, unless "full faith and credit" is applied, in which case any state legalizing same-sex marriage means that ALL states have legalized same-sex marriage.

That's not quite what the laboratories of democracy considered. Any law in any state becomes the law in all states.

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 8:45PM

Divorce law asks whether the couple was legally married AT THE TIME AND PLACE THEY WERE MARRIED - not whether their marriage could have occurred in the state where they seek to get divorced. If a same-sex couple comes to NC and decides to get divorced, NC divorce law would have to divorce them, even though they could never have gotten married here in the first place.

I don't know the law in Texas, but let's assume that in Texas first cousins can't marry. Here in NC, they can. Following your theory, a couple of first cousins who were married in NC would no longer be married upon reaching the Lone Star State. If they came to Texas, would they then be considered divorced, or just still single? If they had kids, would their children be considered bastards while in Texas? If they were just passing through, would they be married again once they reached the other side if the State they entered had laws similar to NC's?

And under your theory, if that NC couple of married first cousins relocated to Texas and split up, they could not avail themselves of Texas divorce law because they couldn't have been married there in the first place.

Clearly, Congress MUST intervene. Only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can resolve this heinous dilemma! They must act by passing legislation that defines marriage as being between people who are not as closely related as first cousins! What? They don't have the power? THEN WE MUST GIVE IT TO THEM!

Look, I am strenuously opposed to gay marriage. But I am also strenuously opposed to giving the Congress more power than the Constitution says it has simply because they're going to use it to do something I agree with. The current holders of that power may not use it in a manner of which I disapprove, but some future successor certainly will.

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 9:50PM

Big E,

We are going to have to disagree on this.

If State A claims that women are chattel to their fathers and husbands, is State B required to return such chattel to the lawful owner because State A says so? I don't think so. It seems we fought the Civil War over such questions. What happens when Michigan adopts Sharia law? It is an extreme example, I know, but it speaks to states rights and the 10th amendment.

The issues are in conflict. You and the writer suggest that the Fed should not defend marriage at the federal level. Fine! Leave it to the states. You cannot have it both ways without destroying the federal system and the rights of states to enact laws outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution which is silent on the issue of marriage.

Charles R. Williams| 2.26.11 @ 6:19PM

Big E,

So now, how do we handle the full faith and credit clause of the constitution? How do we decide which couples may file joint tax returns or must file "married filing separately" returns rather than single returns? The 14th amendment authorizes the Congress to make laws defining the privileges and immunities of American citizens which the states cannot abridge. Under present circumstances it is necessary to define what marriage IS. Absent such a definition the courts could force all state to recognize single-sex marriages on the same 14th amendment grounds that they overturned laws against interracial marriage.

Angie| 2.24.11 @ 9:27AM

I think some people are missing the forest for the trees here. It is not up the executive branch or an agency head to decide which laws they like and will therefore defend. Whether you agree with the DOMA or not is beside the point. It is lawfully still on the books and therefore must be both defended and enforced by the federal government. The legislative branch can either repeal it or the judicial branch can declare it null and void but not the executive.

What if someone breaks a federal law and is going to be tried for it and the DOJ and the executive don’t like the law that was broken so they decide not to assign a federal attorney to prosecute it? The law will not be enforced as the defendant is likely to go free if no one makes a case against them. This is what we are dealing with here. I agree that the government has gone too far with many laws but by simply acting as if they don’t exist is the not the appropriate solution to limit government.

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 10:27AM

The reality is that Prosecutors, Federal and State, are vested with exactly the discretionary authority you cite above. Everyday they make decisions to prosecute or not prosecute particular individuals, or particular violations of law, based upon factors that have nothing to do with the evidence or the law, but rather, based upon their own understanding of the Constitution, their own sense of Justice, judicial economy, or unfortunately, sometimes upon factors which should NOT be considered. I have seen more than one Prosecutor use that discretion to step in and insure that Justice is done when a strict reading of the law would result in an unjust outcome, and I have no desire to strip them of that discretion.

The fact is that every day, countless "executive branch" officers, from local cops on the beat to the President himself, have to make judgments about the Constitutionality of laws and actions in order to do their job. Legislators at all levels, from Town Council to the US Senate, have to do the same every time they consider any act legislation. The Courts may have the final governmental say over what is and what is not Constitutional, but they do not have, and cannot have, the only say.

Jeff| 2.24.11 @ 12:23PM

Then why did they defend it for the last 2 years ?

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 2:00PM

Because they're feckless butt-kissers who've decided to change positions now for political expediency.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:46PM

I don't recall another President coming out and saying that he will no longer enforce a law. You are defending a President being both Congress and the Supreme Court.

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 2:28PM

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution provides as follows:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Presidential oath of office requires him to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, not any law passed by Congress. If the President believes that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional, one could argue that he would be violating his oath of office if he DID enforce it.

In addition, I would cite no less a legal scholar than Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in concurrence with majority opinion in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), as follows:

"Thus, it was not enough simply to repose the power to execute the laws (or to appoint) in the President; it was also necessary to provide him with the means to resist legislative encroachment upon that power. The means selected were various, including a separate political constituency, to which he alone was responsible, and the power to veto encroaching laws, see Art. I, § 7, or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional."

YeloStalyn| 2.24.11 @ 5:20PM

Scalia's comments do not say that the POTUS has the power to first deem a law unconstitutional and then disregard it. He is not granted that authority. He is granted the authority and duty to execute the laws of the land as determined by Congress until either overturned by the people or Congress, or until determined to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Until one of those things happens, he is bound to uphold the laws of the land as those laws are deemed to hold legal power under the very Constitution he is swearing to uphold and protect. By natural extension of it granting Congress the power to make laws, it grants those laws legal, Constitutional validity until determined otherwise in one of the ways prescribed above. Thus, the POTUS is bound, by oath of office, to uphold those very laws even if he disagrees with them. Otherwise, there is no check against his office when he is granted sole authority to determine what laws he will or won't uphold and enforce. At that point, we become a nation under the rule of a single man and his government officials carrying out his orders (read dictator, king, duce, fuhrer, secretary, etc.) rather than a nation under the rule of law that binds all people, including those in the highest offices.

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 5:26PM

I'm afraid you're incorrect, and the current President's Predecessor would disagree with you to. GWB frequently signed bills into law while issuing a signing statement that he had no intention of enforcing them - and he did not invent the procedure.

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 5:35PM

Also, as I noted elsewhere, the POTUS is NOT bound by his oath of office to uphold or enforce any law - he bound to uphold and defend the Constitution. If a law is constitutional, then he has a Constitutional duty to enforce that law - whether he agrees with it or not. But if he determines a law to be unconstitutional, he has a constitutional duty to NOT enforce that law. He does not have to wait until the Supreme Court declares the law unconstiutional. Now, if a court has determined the law to be constitutional, he cannot DEFY that court's ruling, but to my knowledge, every Court which has looked at the DOMA has declared it to be UN-constitutional.

A court in Florida has declared ALL of Obamacare to be unconstiutional, and I've heard many people complain that by continuing to enforce Obamacare, Obama is enforcing an unconstiutional law. But other courts have passed on Obamacare and found it to be constitutional.

And yet here, where every court that has passed on the DOMA has found it unconstitutional, people argue that Obama should still enforce it.

Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency there?

YeloStalyn| 2.24.11 @ 5:58PM

While I inherently dislike the conlusion of what you say, and the inconsistency that you point out, I can not find reason nor example to cite to counter. Sometimes I wish I were a liberal because then I could just make stuff up and not be bound by reason.
Although, I would like to see someone counter this out of a truely selfish distaste for this bum who occupies the office of POTUS.

Michael L. Hauschild| 2.24.11 @ 1:44PM

Nailed it, twice!

DRed| 2.24.11 @ 2:02PM

Well, Obama didn't actually come out and say that he won't enforce the law. That's just what Fox says he says. It's not true.

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 4:47PM

DRed,

I cannot speak for all Fox programs, but I did what Bret Baier yesterday (it's the only program in the evening which calls itself news, rather than opinion although it does have an opinion section) and they were quite clear that Obama was ENFORCING the law, but not DEFENDING it in court.

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 4:48PM

I meant to say that I did >> watch

Curly Smith| 2.24.11 @ 9:37AM

But Congress cannot legislate morality.

Good grief. Morality is the basis for the vast majority of, if not all, legislation. Why do we have laws against murder, robbery and rape? Because they're immoral. What's the basis of the "progressive" tax code? It's "immoral" for the rich to steal. What is considered moral does change over time; slavery was once moral, now it's rightly recognized as an abomination. When legislatures say "these things are right and proper, these things are wrong" they're setting the limits of moral behavior.

Even sadder, perhaps, is that you blithely dismiss the reason behind the DOMA. As you say, marriage is a contract and in these United States a contract between two people is recognized in all 50 States plus the territories. Your mortgage on your Boston home is binding in Virginia, Texas and even New Mexico. You can't flee your responsibility by fleeing the State. So if the fine citizens of Maine allow gay marriage then that marriage contract is valid in all 50 States plus the territories and the benefits that result are free-flowing and everlasting.

When you see the rioting Public Sector Unions what do you see? I see the tyranny of the minority -- which is the same for gay marriage. A few people deciding for the nation (or state) how the majorities money will be spent. And make no mistake, there's a lot of money at stake in Social Security and health insurance benefits and pension plans.

KyMouse| 2.24.11 @ 10:30AM

I'm pondering whether traffic laws have their basis in morality, and I suppose they do.

Traffic laws are primarily about safety and the orderly functioning of society. Ensuring the safety of men, women and children is important not only so that they may continue to be (or may become) productive workers, but also because as human beings, they have lives that have value, and they have an inherent right to live (although not, unfortunately, if they are still in the womb).

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:53PM

Hey, God forbid we question the morality of traffic laws. We might end up being able to drive 100mph safely (this isn't 1950 and I don't drive a 5 ton car that handles like a combine) on the interstate one day.

"You say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." -- Some Hippie

holmegm| 2.24.11 @ 10:07AM

If congress can't legislate based on morality, then what the heck *is* their basis for telling me what to do about anything?

What business is it of theirs who I cheat, who I sell tainted food to, who I kill, who I fail to render charity to? (If morality can't be their business, that is.)

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:54PM

Precisely. Get the hell out of my life.

L. E. Powers| 2.24.11 @ 2:34PM

Actually, the basis of our Constitution and other founding documents is Natural Law, which says that there are unalienable rights Man was given by God or Providence that cannot be abridged by our fellow man. It does not endorse unfettered, unrestricted freedom and does have a moral aspect to it. Natural Law informs English Common Law, which is the other major source of our laws in America.

So there is a moral undertone, and an accountability in our laws, to the One who gave us Natural Law.

Bill| 2.24.11 @ 10:08AM

When the Department of Justice, of course following the President's direction, says that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional, that quite frankly is a blow from an unexpected quarter in favor of the co-equality of constitutional interpretation, should be recognized as such, and applauded.

Eric Damon| 2.24.11 @ 10:24AM

If the President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional, fine. He has every right to say so, but he does not have the right to say that the law should not be defended. The Executive Branch has a duty to defend those laws brought under assault in the courts until a final verdict is rendered by the SCOTUS. If and when the SCOTUS says that the law is unconstitutional, the Executive is then off the hook; but it sets a terrible precedent for the President to take on the powers of the judiciary in this way and cherry pick which laws to support and defend, not based on the merits of the laws, but on his personal political preferences. Because we all know that is what is at play here, especially as he lets the world know how he "personally struggles" with the idea of gay marriage.

The rightful role of the President in this case, if he feels that strongly, is to push for a new law...not abandon the current one.

Bill| 2.24.11 @ 1:29PM

Did anybody, and I mean ANYBODY (including those who voted for him), expect President Obama to set anything OTHER than terrible precedents?

Al Adab| 2.24.11 @ 10:31AM

The veto is the proper response to unconstitutional laws. Selective enforcement is not an available option. Can any of us simply ignore laws we feel unconstitutional? Perhaps with Obamacare we may find out. The public consensus seems to be "we will not comply".

Bill| 2.24.11 @ 1:13PM

The President doesn't have recourse to any veto. DOMA passed with a significant majority of Congressional support and was signed into law some time ago by President Clinton.

When we discuss the national bank debate between the Supreme Court and President Jackson, many of us find the President's statement that (in essence) the Supreme Court has decided, now let it enforce its decision, to be helpful. It's not as if the President's version of constitutionality and the versions of the other two branches of government haven't conflicted before.

Al Adab| 2.24.11 @ 1:21PM

Indeed those conflicts have existed in the past and continue to this day. That is as you note, part of the checks and balances system built into the Constitution. I am aware how long ago the DOMA was passed and that it was signed. Presidents may not undo, by executive order, actions of prior Congresses or Presidents. Andrew jackson notwithstanding, selective enforcement is not an option. Jackson in fact was censured by Congress for his actions. The only President so "honored" to date. Perhaps Congress might choose to revisit that action in our day.

Al Adab| 2.24.11 @ 10:28AM

The Constitution (that old thing) enjoins the executive to take care "that the laws be faithfully enforced." That doesn't allow for selective enforcement based on personal preferences. One might as well decide not to enforce any law violative of conscience. Wouldn't that be an interesting society. Until repealed, DOMA is a law unlike some other mandates by courts or regulatory agencies. Should the executive fail to enforce law, he is in violation of his oath of office. Is there a consequence for that?

Mimi| 2.24.11 @ 11:30AM

Yes... and it should be a replay of what occurred to Richard Nixon...in a short time he was GONE ! On a plane... otta town.
What it took was honorable men of his own PARTY to walk to the Whitehouse.
I honestly believe... the outrage is building up to this! The KEY is HONORABLE

Al Adab| 2.24.11 @ 12:05PM

Mimi:
You posit an interesting scenario. Where might we find those Honorable Men in the Dem party-one solely consumed with its pursuit of power- to make that walk like Goldwater, Rhodes and Scott did so long ago?

I am reminded of Shakespeare wherein Lucius and Cassius are "Honorable Men" facetiously. Do we have such in the Dem party today or have they all gone missing?

Bill| 2.24.11 @ 1:16PM

What Mimi says is true, and highlights the well-known truism that unpopular people and ideas are struck down, while popular ones are upheld.

The solution is not only to bemoan the hypocrisy of those who swear to defend and protect the laws of the United States, but also to work to spread the popularity of the ideas they like and the unpopularity of those they don't, so that the politicians who will do what we want get elected, while the politicians who oppose what we want get lost.

Anthony| 2.24.11 @ 10:45AM

Liberals are all for states rights when it tears down America's culture, but if it upholds tradition their judges will declare it unconstitutional. Conservatives can no longer stand by and play the left's game. The American people are still socially conservative , if we stand for traditional marriage the American people will stand with us. Remember the liar-in-chief stated during his campaign that he was against same-sex marriage, since this clown exists only to get elected, he knew which side the people stand on and they stand with the right.

RacerJim| 2.24.11 @ 10:55AM

Obama's selective enforcement of laws is tyranical. The Speaker of the House should immediately initiate an Impeachment hearing.

RCV| 2.24.11 @ 12:25PM

If Congress passes legislation that trangresses the Constitution, the Executive Branch -- sworn to defend that Constitution -- does not have a duty to defend the unconstitutional act in court. Jefferson had no obligation to defend the unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Laws passed by the Federalist congress. It is not a question of not "enforcing the laws" but of arguing for their constitutionality. The administration took this position only after all the district courts which had considered the issue plainly held DOMA to violate the Consititution in several respects, including plainly contravening the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Congress is free to defend the Act in Court if it so chooses, and yes, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue as it will the issue of the constitutionality of the health reform bill.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 1:19PM

Well you just explained why a President no longer has to defend Roe v Wade.

RCV| 2.24.11 @ 3:13PM

Roe v. Wade is a US Supreme court decision, not a federal law. That constituional issue is now settled unless the constitution is amended or the Court reverses its ruling, as it did in Brown v. Board of Education, reversing the holding in Plessy.

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 12:34PM

If the Supreme Court decides the health reform bill is unconstitutional do you believe this administration will cease enacting it?? Who would enforce the ruling if they do not? How long can the process play out once the Supremes rule?? Stupid question day......

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:36PM

The Supreme Court does not have to take up ObamaCare. A Federal judge has already ruled it void (at least for 26 states).

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 12:57PM

Yeah, that's great Wayne but last I checked, it was still rolling right along (Obamacare). Obama could care less what the Fed. judge says so long as it is in opposition. This is my point.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 1:14PM

Well the House does not have to fund it and states do not have to comply. Who cares what Obama thinks? ObamaCare is dead unless a court of appeal revives it.

RCV| 2.24.11 @ 1:09PM

The majority of courts which have considered the Act's constitutionality have upheld it. The Supreme Court will ultimately resolve the issue, and if it rules against the Administration, the law is dead. That's the way it works.

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 1:12PM

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I just have a hard time thinking he packs it in if they rule against. I suppose we shall see.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 1:16PM

Being a Majority is not a factor. The decision that it is null for 26 states is all those states need to quit moving forward on ObamaCare. They don't require any further ruling. Obama however does.

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 1:27PM

The States would not enforce the mandate & jack you with the penalty on your taxes. The IRS is the enforcer. Sounds like a nice theory but not in reality. Hosw does the State block the penalty?

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 5:00PM

Steve A,

Good questions. I'm not a lawyer, but suggest the state has no interest in the relation of the taxpayer and the Fed. I, the taxpayer, pay the money to the IRS then I sue them in Federal Court to get it back. Not worth it for the individual, but a group might find it profitable to spend a couple of hundred thousand.

The state, having won in Federal Court, is not bound by the now overturned law.

But... it ain't over yet. Until it is, this is mere idle speculation.

RCV| 2.24.11 @ 3:10PM

District court rulings only become final when the time for appeal has run. Once an appeal has been filed, as it will be in each of the cases, both the district court and courts of appeal will consider whether to stay the ruling pending appeal. The same holds true for the gay marriage ruling in California, where the court's decision holding unconstitutional California's law banning same sex marriage has been stayed pending appeal, and in the two cases striking down the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, which were stayed pending appeal and congressional action.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:35PM

Well it seems to me that if the US is not to defend "marriage" then marriage itself should have no meaning to the US. Does it make sense for marriage to have legal meaning to the federal government, yet have up to 50 different definitions?

But what many people don't seem to understand is this: To change the definition of marriage is to reduce it to having NO meaning. The reason is simple. If gay people can insists marriage can be changed to suit them, then any group of people can say that we must continue to redefine marriage to suit them also. Why for example would sex be required? If not, then incests laws are discriminatory and need to be removed. Also why limit marriage to a couple? So we can now have group marriage.

To some this is a bit far fetched but I disagree. I can see why a brother and sister at about 60 would want to marry purely for economic reasons. And on what grounds can anyone say that they shouldn't.

So once you account for all the variants, you end up with something that no longer resembles marriage because it is not.

Bill| 2.24.11 @ 1:19PM

Quite right. Government involvement in the institution of marriage is and was solely to generate income for government and has nothing to do with the religious basis of the institution.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:35PM

So once you account for all the variants, you end up with something that no longer resembles marriage because it is not.

Dave Williams| 2.24.11 @ 12:42PM

Spot on, sir, spot on. Look at the places in Europe where gay marriage is 100% legal, like Spain & the Netherlands. Has the sky fallen? Is there blood flowing in the streets? No. Now, I wouldn't choose to live there for economic reasons, but, c'mon...how is society threatened in ANY way by two people who love each other getting together?
If you don't approve of homosexual relationships, the solution is simple: don't have any.
As for taxing the churches, a GREAT idea, LONG overdue.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:50PM

Do they still have incests laws? Why?

RCV| 2.24.11 @ 1:12PM

Because society has a legitimate interest in preventing genetic disorders, and in preventing sexual exlpoitation of children, among many other defensible reasons for incest laws. Not defending DOMA is not the same as not defending marriage.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 1:18PM

Based upon what? The assumption there is sex. But since we are redefining marriage, their is no reason to make this assumption. The incest laws should only be in regards to sex itself and not marriage.

Bill| 2.24.11 @ 1:22PM

Incest laws are made with regard to sex and not to marriage. However, there are laws that prohibit marriage to people who are too closely related to one another. Those laws, as previously pointed out, are not so much related to the institution of marriage as to the threat to the well-being of the offspring of such marriages. Such laws are made as part of the states' police power to make laws regulating the public health, safety, and welfare.

L. E. Powers| 2.24.11 @ 2:41PM

Wonderful trap you wove, Wayne. It still gets back to the basis for our laws is Natural Law, and in the Natural law, as well as our Traditions (not "thats the way we've always done it" but written record of the wise men of the ages) is that marriage is between one man and one woman. Even in societies where polygamy and other arrangements were tolerated, it was only for some specific expedient.

Bill| 2.24.11 @ 4:01PM

Actually, in the United States, the three main legal philosophies of jurisprudence are: (1) the positivists, a la Oliver Wendell Holmes (typical postivist viewpoint, "a contract is an agreement that the courts will enforce"), (2) the natural law proponents with the main difficulty being to define what laws are "natural" and what laws are not; and (3) the pragmatists, who believe that the law should change depending on whatever works in the circumstances (their main problem is that they have trouble developing a system of law that is certain, predictable, and reliable).

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 5:04PM

Does society have a similar interest in the prevention of AIDS? While there are a few vectors, the principal way to get this disease is repeated buggery.

RCV| 2.24.11 @ 7:00PM

And promoting stable monogamous relationships among both gays and heterosexuals is a positive step in that direction.

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 11:29PM

As if gays are suddenly to become less licentious because they are permitted, by law, to become less so.

It reminds me of my nine-year-old, years ago, who argued that if I didn't punish him, he wouldn't be so bad!

Nice try!

RCV| 2.25.11 @ 12:34PM

You must not know a lot of gay people. The gay lawyers, judges, doctors and teachers whom my wife and I are proud to know are good people who deserve equal rights. They don't need your "punishments".

Ross Kaminsky | 2.24.11 @ 12:45PM

Aaron,

Excellent piece...right on target.

For those "conservatives" here who argue that legislating marriage is no different than laws against murder, you have some serious thinking to do about liberty and fundamental (or natural) rights.

Generically, don't we want a government that refuses to defend in court laws which it believes to be unconstitutional? To be clear, this is not about selective enforcement as they said they recognize they must enforce the law until and unless it is repealed or otherwise made null and void.

Until social issues conservatives stop trying to force their morality down the throats of the rest of us -- including those of us who are conservative or libertarian and tend to vote Republican (like me) -- it's going to be difficult to sustain a long-term winning electoral coalition.

To the extent that social issues conservatives want to try to legislate morality, it's a fight that MUST be done at the state level. Once we let the feds get into legislating morality, we will simply be subject to the ever more chaotic yo-yo of liberals replacing conservatives replacing liberals, etc., much to the detriment of our nation.

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:49PM

I think you may be too caught into a libertarian mindset to see the contradiction. You can not limit the new definitions for marriage, thus making the concept of marriage itself meaningless.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 2:10PM

If the government changes the definition of marriage, does that change YOUR definition, or to take it step further, does it change your bible's definition?

It doesn't matter, dude.

L. E. Powers| 2.24.11 @ 2:49PM

I think to the point of enforcement, people doing the enforcing have many competing demands and we want them to enforce where their efforts do the best to preserve society. If law enforcement does not want to enforce parking laws because police time is better spent curbing speeding in neighborhoods or gang violence, or whatever, that is the decision the government makes on how to use its resources, given them by the people, do to their job.

Failure of the government to defend a law that the government finds distasteful is really only problematic if the courts only allow the government to defend laws and do not permit other parties, citizens, to offer defense.

Failing that, we have the power of impeachment of both the executive and judicial branches. Naturally, that requires the Legislature to act; but there are routes to having the people's will heard if people are willing to do something about it.

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 1:01PM

If you are a proponent of gay marriage I simply ask you this ??. Why are you so bent on changing the definition of "marriage."? Go ahead & call it a civil union, domestic partnership, whatever. You can have all the same rights & benefits as married couples for all I care. You can even go ahead & pay the marriage tax. Just get out of my face with it. Go live your life & leave me & the foundation of Western Civilization for the last 20,000 years or so alone.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:40PM

I used to view the issue from this perspective, but after talking to some people in the finance industry, apparently there are some "rights" (Tired of people mis-using this word) aka "benefits" aka "subsidies" that straight couples get when it comes to estate planning that homo "civil unions" do not recieve.

But the bottom line is, you can either keep defending OUR definition of marriage, or we can take away the damn subsidies and expose what the gays really want: Social and Moral Acceptance from the public. Which they won't get it from me. I respect them, but I will never believe that god intended for people to be homosexual. I see homosexuality more in terms of a personality disorder than "being born with it."

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:43PM

But think of all the votes (long-term) that would mean for conservatives if we prove that we REALLY want people to be equal, not priveleged. And we could do all of this without ever changing the definition of marriage.

I'm all for it, no homophobe here. Let's make this Conservative-Gay Coalition happen.

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 2:04PM

Phil, I think we agree. I say give them the estate benefit, benefit benefit, whatever financial incentive equates with "marriage," but refuse to redefine the term. As you infer, Jack & Joe will never equate with Jack & Jill in my book, no matter what laws you enact.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 2:12PM

I'm all for that. There are three options. all are not mutually exclusive.

1) Change marriage definition
2) Give gay couples the subsides (remember, costs and taxes are associated with all subsidies, and an ensuing loss of economic freedom)
3) Take away the subsidies of straight couples, along with the costs to the taxpayer. (I like this choice)

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 2:18PM

Phil, If I am not mistaken, I pay more taxes as a result of being married. Correct me if I am wrong. So I pick #2 & let them have the marriage penalty along with estate deduction. Call it a day. They would never go for it as it is not about benefits as you indicated. Still, it is the perfect response to campaign on if you are GOP & the ?? is asked.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 2:34PM

Or we can just eliminate the subsidies, AND the corresponding taxes that go along with them. Remember, just like with healthcare, SOMEBODY is gonna pay for it.

Oldefarte| 2.24.11 @ 1:11PM

Once again [for the thousandth time] the NATURAL LAW is the basis for/foundation of the entirety of MAN'S LAW [ie, Thou shalt not kill=laws against murder, etc]. Natural law is explicit on marriage [Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's WIFE; Honor your MOTHER and thy FATHER]. Same sex/homosexual marriage is IMMORAL and against the NATURAL LAW, therefore it is also illegal under MAN'S LAW, Case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:33PM

Dittos. People act like marriage can't exist without government. These are laws that reside with GOD!

"In the name of the father, son, and the holy spirit, I pronounce you man and wife."

OR,

"In the name of your federal, state, and local government, we allow you to become man and wife."

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE IN??????????

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:36PM

Correction: "In the name of your federal, state, and local govt, we allow you to become man and wife, or man and man, or wife and wife"

It's GOD's LAW!! Government needs to butt out.

RCV| 2.24.11 @ 3:05PM

Churches can marry or refuse to marry any one they want. We're only discussing civil marriage, which government by definition is involved in.

Oldefarte| 2.24.11 @ 4:35PM

ALL MARRIAGES are God's, who established the sacrament of marriage. Again, the MATURAL LAW is the basis for [and trumps therefore] MAN'S LAW; and the NATURAL LAW forbids homosexuality. Therefore same-sex marriage is impossible/illegal/immoral!!!!!!!!!!

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 4:41PM

Take 'em to church Oldefarte!

Clint| 2.24.11 @ 1:18PM

The Obama Administration is exposing itself, in order to ramp up for The 2012 Presidential Election.

The Obama Administration needs that Socialist Leftists' Amorality Agenda Money & Big Union Money.

The Father Deserted Obama Lacks Core Values.

It's About The 2012 Presidential Election.

Start Vetting The Obama Beater Candidates.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Winners Rise Up Now.

George S| 2.24.11 @ 1:25PM

It is NOT about legislating morality. It is about upholding the law. Period. If we don't like the law, we change it through the constitutional process.

What the DoJ is doing leads to a downward spiral: the president refuses to enforce a law, then the federal courts refuse to adjudicate that law since it won't be enforced. Where does a citizen then seek redress? Congress? They will then not legislate on that issue? That may be fine and dandy from a limited government proponent's point of view but then issues that affect people in other states may not have federal representation. Example: What if states refused to honor out of state driver's licenses? There is precedence there -- most states refuse to honor out of state gun permits. Congress refuses to get involved based on the president may not be willing to enforce it. Or... we lobby Congress to pass a law -- The Defense of Defense Act, that forces states to honor out of state gun permits -- but Congress refuses because a president may not enforce that law.

This is why the word 'impeachment' appears in the Constitution. We have a genuine crisis here. If Obama gets away with this, we are toast. Think about it. First he refuses to show his birth certificate and nothing happens. Then he takes over GM and nothing happens. Then refuses a federal judge's order against drilling and nothing happens. Then he disregards a federal judge's ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional and nothing happens. Now he refuses to enforce a law. You guys still want to argue a morality play? Wake up and see what is going on while we still have the right to vote.

DRed| 2.24.11 @ 2:19PM

The president hasn't refused to enforce the law. His justice department has indicated that it will tell a court that the executive branch believes a certain portion of the law is unconstitutional. There's a significant difference.

An example of a president refusing to enforce the law would be Ronald Reagan selling arms to the mullahs in Iran to fund a south american right wing militia.

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 2:39PM

DRed, You make a good point but if it were not for that I would not have had the pleasure of watching Ollie North decimate the leftists in his testimony on the tube back when we still had one of those dials that rotated the antenna on the roof.

DRed| 2.24.11 @ 2:47PM

Were you happy when the leftists at the ACLU helped get his conviction vacated?

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 2:51PM

Wow, you mean the ACLU got 1 right? That makes their overall record 1 - 56,987.

George S| 2.24.11 @ 3:33PM

It is OUR Justice Department, not Obama's. If the DoJ refuses to assert the law's constitutionality it is, in effect, not upholding it which means our representation in government is effectively nullified. What would then be the function of Executive Branch then? To only lead the military?

Not upholding the law equals not enforcing the law. There is no difference -- ask anybody who has been sued and not answered the suit in court. You lose by default no matter if the facts or the law are on your side. That is why federal, state and local governments spare no expense in defending even the most trivial of suits.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:29PM

Question: So many people saying you can't "legislate morality", is that an implication that gay marriage is immoral?

I'm not disagreeing, I do think its immoral. But I'm no saint by any means, so how about we just eliminate the damn subsidies so we're ALL equal again (including single people). They can answer to their own conscience regarding the question of the morality of homosexuality. I just want to live my life, and be responsible for myself. And I want the same for you.

Oldefarte| 2.24.11 @ 4:38PM

That's the whole idea. As Andy Griffith said in WHAT IT WAS WAS FOOTBALL, the object of the game is to RUN FROM ONE END OF THAT COW PASTURE TO THE OTHER, WITHOUT EITHER GETTING KNOCKED DOWN.......OR STEPPIN IN SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 4:41PM

LOL!!

Timely Renewed | 2.24.11 @ 1:40PM

There is a deeper issue at stake here. Obama has based this move on the expansion of the 14th amendment through the Supreme Court's illegitimate addition of the "privacy" doctrine to the hopelessly vague first section of the 14th amendment. In order to have the rule of law, those charged with power in a polity must respect the original written text of the laws. If they are allowed a very broad discretion in the interpretation of the text, you quickly are reduced to the rule of men, where legal power is based on what the rulers can get away with rather than some pre-agreed foundational understanding. The 14th Amendment was about prohibiting government race discrimination. In expanding this original meaning, the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the power to effectively amend the Constitution, a procedure for which the document itself requires approval by super-majorities of democratically elected legislators. The real solution is to amend the 14th amendment to restore its original meaning as a ban on governmental race discrimination. This will end not only the Obama administration's move toward supporting the judicial imposition of gay marriage nationwide, but a host of other constitutional abuses by the modern Supreme Court. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

Joe D.| 2.24.11 @ 1:46PM

Aaron Goldstein, I could not disagree with you more. We already have a problem with marriage in this country and family breakdown from the bad experiments of the 1960s. This is a sick and preverted lifestyle that is killing people and morally destroying our country. If left to the states and courts it will become law and people will have to deal with this sick lifestyle daily infront of their poor kids.

Congress cannot legislate morality, what? I agree with Darin. It is done every day especially by the left. That is what is happening now with the homo lifestyle. Slowly but surely we are being told what we can think, say and do with regards to this lifestyle CHOICE.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:57PM

uhhhhh... You think the degradation of marriage is why our country is on fire? Have you seen our debt? Have you seen a liberty lately that some bureacrat hasn't talked about taking away. Wake the hell up, dude. Or else you'll wake up under a despot, but at least you'll have your definition of marriage. (BTW, marriage is between you, your partner, and god. why worry what the govt thinks?)

the refudiator| 2.24.11 @ 2:01PM

From what I am reading the majority of those against gay marriage are so due to religious conviction. But have you considered that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. None of us are in a position to enforce religious doctrine on anyone.

It boils down to equal protection under the law. Unless you want to argue that homosexuals are not fully human, you have no argument against gay marriage that will withstand any scrutiny. Also, if you want to use religious texts such as the Old Testament to sanction homosexuals then we are back to polygamy & slavery. You cannot pick & choose your scripture.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 2:20PM

Noone said they are unequal. as a single man, I'm "not fully human" just as much as a gay couple.

This isn't about the definition of marriage, its about subsidies.

I have no problem with gay couples getting "married." But the subsidies for hetero couples, I would imagine, were created to encourage reproduction, bc after all, the next generation is all we have.

But I agree, lets make everyone equal by eliminating subsidies. Only people with the purest intentions would get married. Closer families and a lower divorce rate. WIN-WIN-WIN.

But don't try to turn this into a simpleton argument that anyone against changing the definition is just a bible-thumper. Marriage shouldn't mean anything to non-religious types, after all, marriage is a religious institution whether you want to accept it or not.

However, I think you need to chill with some of the fear mongering and equating christians with polygamists and slaveowners.

gary siebel| 2.24.11 @ 3:01PM

Error.... Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

Name one right that is requested; name even ONE! There aren't any. Not even one. But guess what, marriage is based upon a request, not a demand. If marriage is a RIGHT I demand that Paris Hiltom marry me tomorrow (we can get divorced a few days later).

Under your theory, if Paris H refuses to marry me she would be subject to a lawsuit for violating my alleged right to marriage. In fact, if I request but am refused marriage by every woman on the planet, what then of my so-called right?

I make this argument on the basis of equal rights, not against them. Civil unions are the way forward.

gary siebel| 2.24.11 @ 3:03PM

btw,, I would take Madonna into consideration as a second choic to Paris... :-)

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 3:14PM

Dang gary. Hope you plan on gloveing up!:)

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 4:43PM

LMAO! Better double bag that one!

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 4:45PM

Dude... Paris Hilton is your choice?? She looks ethiopian to me.. I'll take Jessica Alba, you can have paris hilton. But I do see a benefit of marrying into the money!

Clint| 2.24.11 @ 2:12PM

American Spectator's Quin Hillyer Rips The Canuck Goldstein A New One.

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 2:13PM

Why do you seek to redefine the term, "marriage."?? Call it whatever else you want & get all of the bennies & call it a day.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 2:21PM

I believe their are some subsidies they don't get, but I think Social and Moral Acceptance of their "sins" has more to do with it than what many would admit.

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 2:44PM

You are right on it Phil. Nobody I have ever encountered will answer my above ?? with a rational response that does not have as its motive a forced, social, moral equivalency.

Mick Lee| 2.24.11 @ 2:22PM

I do not care for how this discussion has been framed. Marriage is not a contract. It is an institution. Most importantly, a pre-existing institution. The state did not create it. It existed before the dawn of any state and it will persist long after the dissolution of any state. Therefore, the states authority (national, state and local) to define or re-define marriage according to its fleeting, ever-changing notions is properly very minimal.

A contract (a “concept” itself created by the state) implies that the two parties negotiate the terms of their agreement. While it is true husbands and wives work out between them who does the dishes, cooking, taking out the trash, doing repairs, etc, both man and women enter into an institution which has expectations already built it and changes their status and identity in the community. The community itself (state or no state) already has expectations which the couple must live up to.

When I was first married, what Dietrich Bonheoffer said about marriage make no sense to me: “In the beginning, it is your love which holds up your marriage. In time, it will be your marriage which upholds your love.” Thirty-six years later, I can tell you that no contract could have survived what we have been through together. Our love could have easily been broken several times. And love changes—something young people don’t understand. Frankly, love would not have been enough to keep us together. But marriage has a power all its own. I don’t know how this works—just that it does. Being a devout Lutheran, certain things suggest themselves. Whatever it is, it also seems to work in the marriages of non-believers as well. (That is, if they enter a marriage rather than a contract. I had a friend in college who's marriage vow was "I promise to love, honor and cherish as long as we love each other". Guess how long that marriage lasted.)

Unfortunately, the time of restraint by the government is long past. A good deal of our contemporary problems with marriage exist precisely because the state injected itself into the matter to begin with. As much as one would want to, you can’t just accept “as is” the mess of things the state has made if in the unlikely situation it decided to bug out of the matter. A restoration has to take place at least in the sense that a number of laws and rulings have to be demolished.

Personally, I think things have gotten so out of hand that the DOMA is not enough. To restrain the power of the state, a constitutional means is needed. (Restraining the state is what The Bill Of Rights is supposed to be all about. Remember?)

“If the marriage institution is so powerful, why not just let it settle back to what it is supposed to be.” Well, that requires a whole other response. Real quickly, begin with asking just what “marriage is for” and you’ll be half way there.

gary siebel| 2.24.11 @ 2:45PM

And here I was ready to "anoint" Obama (whoops, no, because "anointing " would be a prelude to turning him into a God), because his re-election seemed assured by the overreaching Repub governors (not Christie, btw) who have virtually guaranteed a huge Dem turnout in 2012, and then he goes and disses the Marriage Act. The sheer number of comments here means the turnout in 2012 could be just humongous -- everybody has something at stake for the first time since..., well, the election of Lincoln.

I agree marriage is subject to the voters in the States, but I disagree as to Obama's reason for dissing the Marriage Act now. He also recognizes the big Dem turnout potential because of Repub union busting, so he is making a calculated gamble -- his ranks of allies are definitely not thinning at all. But this is like adding a rider to a popular bill,

If the Repubs continue to argue the marriage issue on religious instead of secular grounds (e.g., there is no RIGHT to marriage -- period -- marriage is a PRIVILEGE), Obama could gain a double victory!

I, for one, will now have to reconsider for whom I will vote. If the Repubs put up a troglodyte, it's Obama. If they don't, it's possibly abstention for me. So far, all potential Repubs appear very troglodytic.

btw, in regards to troglodytism, if Spectator weren't quite so backward RW they could easily upgrade the website for just a few k by accessing the out-of-work web design geniuses in Bay Area/SF. The 25k fee is a rip-off. Web sites are a dime a dozen nowadays.

Lenny| 2.24.11 @ 2:53PM

" ...matrimony is only as good as the two people who enter into it."

That is simply hogwash. Marriage cannot be viewed as a small picture, but must be viewed as a big picture. Civilizations that did not make a stand for marriage greatly declined. Government has a compelling interest in marriage and family. A nation is only as strong as its communities, neighborhoods, and families. To minimize the family as a priority is most unwise. Government will always be involved in one way or another. In fact, government has been picking up the pieces of foolish policy and failed social experiments -- no-fault divorce, cohabitation, violence -- for decades. Marriage strengthening, not a redefinition of marriage, is in good order. Let the nation disregard marriage at its own peril.

RCV| 2.24.11 @ 3:02PM

"Government has a compelling interest in marriage and family. A nation is only as strong as its communities, neighborhoods, and families." Absolutely. And encouraging gays who enter into stable monogamous relationships, and supporting those who have families, will be a positive thing for them and for society, without in any way negatively affecting the marriages of heterosexuals like you, me or anyone else.

John II| 2.24.11 @ 4:21PM

You haven't looked very deeply into this issue, Roberto, or you couldn't possibly be commenting on it in the manner of a bright 16-year-old hustling points for a high school debate team.

When the persecution of the Roman Catholic Church begins here in the West for her refusal to witness or honor same-sex "marriage," I'll be curious to read your response. Meanwhile, you may (or perhaps may not) want to try a quick plunge into the deeper end rather than merely splash contentedly in the children's wading pool:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa.....id=1722155

RCV| 2.24.11 @ 5:18PM

If that day should ever occur, kind sir, I will defend vigorously the right of the Church to follow its conscience. I spent much of my legal career representing churches in free exercise cases, and feel most strongly about protecting their rights. And the strength of those feelings is matched by an understanding of the legal and other issues that I'd like to think exceeds that of most 16 year-olds, even the bright ones, John.

John II| 2.24.11 @ 9:34PM

"Figured you for a kneeler." (Mattie Ross, in the correct 1969 version of "True Grit.")

Yes, yes--I know, Roberto. But that day is already here, in case you haven't noticed. Remind me to tell you of the experience of some of my friends out in California who dared to support Proposition 8. Or the experience of the current Pope when he was trashed by homosexualists during his cardinal's visit to the U.S. of A. in the late 1980's, for Pete's sake.

Someday perhaps we shall meet, and discuss this and other issues over an extremely expensive bottle of Grandaddy whiskey. I know you've opted for the chicness of the Episcopal thing, but surely you can revert to your Catholic roots enough to appreciate a good whiskey.

John II| 2.25.11 @ 12:17AM

Correction. The correct brand name of America's greatest whiskey is "Old Grand Pappy." I must have been mad when I mistyped it so egregiously. My apologies to all discerning readers.

RCV| 2.25.11 @ 12:35PM

It would be a pleasure.

RCV| 2.25.11 @ 12:40PM

...and it was not "chicness" that brought me to the Episcopal Church. As a matter of fact, what started my conversion was my inability to abide the introduction of guitars, ugly modern Catholic church architecture, and dreadful folk music that made me think I was in some Southern Baptist worship center. The majesty of a high-church Episcopal service with its glorious music brought me in, and the intellectual freedom kept me there.

John II| 2.26.11 @ 12:53AM

Oh. Well, if you don't mind abandoning the "intellectual freedom" in favor of the freedom of revealed truth, the RC's are now in the process of recovering their aesthetic dignity after a generation of insobriety (in Western Europe and North America anyhow).

I mean, the whole flaky thing was generational, restricted roughly to those born between 1930 and 1960. They're all dying off now, Roberto.

Get thee back to the bosom of Holy Mother Church. You can park your absurd chic politics at the door. We need your good taste as the younger generation of the orthodox, faithful to the true wisdom of Vatican II and the full Apostolic tradition, slowly take back the pews, so to speak.

And now back to "I Confess" (1953), a stunning articulation of orthodoxy by that great, great Catholic filmmaker, Alfred Hitchcock.

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 2:58PM

gary, Hate to break it to you buddie but the gay marriage issue will rank right next to pet health care in the next election cycle.

As for the public union issue, when you have my kids teachers skipping school to protest because they can no longer collectively bargain for 126 sick days in addition to 100% funded health bennies & 100% funded pensions with no accountability for doing a crummy job, I'll take my chances on public opinion.

gary siebel| 2.24.11 @ 3:14PM

Steve... don't underestimate pet health care as an issue -- try reading the Carmel Pine Cone, a conservative rag that devotes inordinate space to pets.

It is one thing to demand a reduction in pay of public unions (including, or perhaps especially, of police and underworked firefighters (see Las Vegas and SF)), which a majority would probably support. It is quite another to eliminate the right to bargain. The Repub governors who cut the sweetheart deals with unions are as much to blame as the unions trying to get all they can, same as Wall ST bankers.

I conclude you are from the South because your argument is more about the way the message has been delivered, than the message itself. You would have the protesters show up at midnight, I suppose, which is about the only time they would have to get out after grading the papers of so many children brain damaged by RW doctrine -- LOL

But really, just when should they be permitted to protest? Sundays, when the legislature is not in session?

Steve A| 2.24.11 @ 3:27PM

gary, You made me laugh. I like that.

I suppose they could go after 3:30 PM or perhaps Saturday. They would still get the same glowing left wing media coverage.

Hey, I'm not all about bashing teachers. In fact, the public school teachers in my area are some of the best in the USA in my opinion. Our school system absolutely rocks. I have 3 kids in public schools. However, it appears to be a bit different scenario in Wisconsin. The overall proficiency of the students appears lacking, the sate budget is in shambles & a mere 5% or 12% kick in for your own bennies does not get to the root of the overall issue.

I have had to combat the public school brainwashing that the Earth is going to explode if I drive my F-350 too often. Once the logical alternative of that nonsense theory was explained, my 3 grasped that one rather easily & have fallen off the enviromental justice bandwagon. Just thought you would like to know;)

PS: Good luck with Paris.......

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 4:47PM

LMAO! #FACT

Danno| 2.24.11 @ 3:02PM

All laws are based on morality. The only question is whose morality is prevailing. Is law the socialist Senate's morality, or is it the traditional Americans in the House's morality? Law is a moral standard, and the great battle of the day is to determine whose morality will win out. God save us if it is the Socialists'.

2Anglico| 2.24.11 @ 3:35PM

Mr. Goldstein, is this one of these moments where we "have to give Obama credit for being right"? This is what he wanted to do all along. He's just being himself. He is a usurper and a danger to our country. How courteous of you to find something he did right. I hope the next Republican president stops enforcing the deduction of FICA taxes from our paychecks (or any of the innumerable other violations imposed by congress) which is CLEARLY un-Constitutional. I'm sure Mr. Goldstein would give that president the same courtesy about being right.

Bhan999| 2.24.11 @ 4:13PM

"...Congress cannot legislate morality."

But Congress CAN make moral legislation.

StevenMallory| 2.24.11 @ 5:22PM

I love the alternative point of view Goldstein offers. To often these ideas are rejected out of hand by the conservative party and its voters. It is good these principled arguments are discussed within the party without the demogaugery from the left.
To Christian conservatives: This out of hand dismissal leaves Jeffersionian and libertarian thinkers without a party. F.A Hayek also felt disenfranchised by these "fascist tendencies", and being a libertarian, he (Friedman, Rand, Sowell) are only left to side with the conservative party. (I believe a healthy liberatarian party, statism could be finally extinguished in this country) This tendency also leaves many voters, who are primarily unengaged, thinking conservatives lean toward fascism, and I believe understandibly so. This an arbitrary denial of liberty.
To all Christians: "What makes you believe you have the right to control your fellow Americans life and liberty?" You have no right.

David| 2.24.11 @ 6:03PM

The problem with this issue is that its proponents only want to refer to same sex marriage between two people. In my opinion, I cannot understand how they can fairly deny any number of consenting adults their right to marry. I don't understand why the argument is confined to only allowing 2 men or 2 women to marry. If 2 people of the same sex can marry, then 3, 4, 5, or 10 people of any sexual makeup should also be allowed to marry. So should marriage among any number of consenting adults even if they are family members. How can any homosexual say they have a right to marry, but not any 3 men, or 1 man and two women. Those questions need to asked of the pro homo folks.

David| 2.24.11 @ 6:08PM

To Steven Mallory, who is is that is bringing up Christianity to support those against homo marriage? You are. The fact is, you want to change the entire history of the WESTERN, CIVILIZED world to make homosexuals feel okay about themselves and what they do.

If the fed government should not be involved in DOMA, then the fed government also has no business involving itself in the abortion issue.

Steve, I pose the question: if 2 men or women can marry, are you willing to allow any number of consenting adults to marry and in any combination whatsoever?

If not, then you are the bigoted one. You cannot fairly, I don't know how it would be legally permissible, to deny any number of adults the right to marry. Can you explain it?

rob| 2.24.11 @ 6:47PM

I believe a marriage is made between two people and God. The churches officate [or not, their choice] at a public ceremony. Call me a mossy-backed reactionary knuckle-dragger, but I draw the line at "people", no animals.

I believe in that as strongly as I do in the Right ot Keep and Bear Arms, because I 'm a Liberal. Like JFK, who founded the Special Warfare Center and [thank God] gave us the Special Forces. HHHOOOAAAHHH! ! !

David| 2.24.11 @ 6:54PM

Rob, do you mean any two men or two women and God? If so, why do you limit it to only two people. If you meant a man and a woman, then I agree with you.

Brian| 2.24.11 @ 7:28PM

It's time repubs recognize libertarians for what they are and kick them out of the party.

Ken Royall| 2.25.11 @ 12:08AM

The author of this article is terribly misguided and short-sighted. The people and their representatives made it the government's business when the law was passed. Whether the law is constitutional or even a good idea or not should be decided in the proper venue in the right way.

There are always going to be those that disagree with this law or that, but that doesn't mean an administration should pick and choose what laws they will defend in court. That is not their role. How many other laws on the books should we allow Obama to toss aside?

Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 2:52AM

is good

العاب | 4.11.12 @ 5:24PM

Thank you for the correction on the reference. My brain was misreading Roman Numerals.

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|40 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|31 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|24 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|46 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|6 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|15 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|16 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Marital Spectator

It’s Not Its Business

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (181) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 2.24.11 @ 7:00AM

AS Lurker| 2.24.11 @ 7:25AM

Wade Smith| 2.24.11 @ 8:05AM

Wade Smith| 2.24.11 @ 8:05AM

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:41PM

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:20PM

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:25PM

AS Lurker| 2.24.11 @ 7:10AM

Wade Smith| 2.24.11 @ 8:02AM

jolizoom| 2.24.11 @ 10:50PM

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 2:03PM

P.Smith| 2.24.11 @ 8:02AM

Occam's Tool| 2.24.11 @ 11:20AM

potkas7| 2.24.11 @ 8:14AM

A. C. Santore| 2.24.11 @ 9:05AM

AS Lurker| 2.24.11 @ 9:16AM

Ret. Marine| 2.24.11 @ 10:11AM

Tom Osterman| 2.24.11 @ 8:25AM

KyMouse| 2.24.11 @ 10:20AM

Missouri David| 2.24.11 @ 6:54PM

With God all things r possible| 2.24.11 @ 8:31AM

With God all things r possible| 2.24.11 @ 8:45AM

Al Adab| 2.24.11 @ 10:24AM

YeloStalyn| 2.24.11 @ 9:47AM

With God all things r possible| 2.24.11 @ 1:17PM

YeloStalyn| 2.24.11 @ 2:24PM

With God all things r possible| 2.25.11 @ 10:06AM

Handy| 2.24.11 @ 10:58AM

With God all things r possible| 2.24.11 @ 1:08PM

Handy| 2.24.11 @ 1:36PM

With God all things r possible| 2.25.11 @ 10:10AM

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:48PM

Handy| 2.24.11 @ 6:35PM

With God all things r possible| 2.25.11 @ 10:19AM

Coal Miner's Son| 2.24.11 @ 8:32AM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 9:16AM

Michael L. Hauschild| 2.24.11 @ 10:28AM

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:49PM

Handy| 2.24.11 @ 11:29AM

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:50PM

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:44PM

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:50PM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 1:58PM

L. E. Powers| 2.24.11 @ 2:25PM

L. E. Powers| 2.24.11 @ 2:27PM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 2:48PM

L. E. Powers| 2.24.11 @ 2:56PM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 4:16PM

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 4:35PM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 5:24PM

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 7:27PM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 8:45PM

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 9:50PM

Charles R. Williams| 2.26.11 @ 6:19PM

Angie| 2.24.11 @ 9:27AM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 10:27AM

Jeff| 2.24.11 @ 12:23PM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 2:00PM

Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 12:46PM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 2:28PM

YeloStalyn| 2.24.11 @ 5:20PM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 5:26PM

The Big E| 2.24.11 @ 5:35PM

YeloStalyn| 2.24.11 @ 5:58PM

Michael L. Hauschild| 2.24.11 @ 1:44PM

DRed| 2.24.11 @ 2:02PM

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 4:47PM

John Navratil| 2.24.11 @ 4:48PM

Curly Smith| 2.24.11 @ 9:37AM

KyMouse| 2.24.11 @ 10:30AM

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:53PM

holmegm| 2.24.11 @ 10:07AM

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 1:54PM

L. E. Powers| 2.24.11 @ 2:34PM

Bill| 2.24.11 @ 10:08AM