The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : DOMA Does Not Violate the Tenth Amendment

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

DOMA Does Not Violate the Tenth Amendment

By W. James Antle, III on 7.9.10 @ 3:15PM

While it is always nice to see a federal judge dusting off the Tenth Amendment, the ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates states' rights is fairly ridiculous. DOMA is not a "federal ban on gay marriage." It did not prevent Massachusetts from recognizing same-sex marriage. It would not prevent all 50 states from doing so if they chose. What it does is prevent Massachusetts from using the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution to impose same-sex marriage on unwilling states and the federal government.

More than 30 states have reaffirmed marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Just a handful have adopted a unisex definition of marriage, only two legislatively and none by popular vote. If you want to argue that this somehow violates the equal protection clause, fine, but the Tenth Amendment did not give Massachusetts the right to override the rest of the country on the issue of how marriage will be defined for public purposes.

View all comments (4) | Leave a comment

Susan Grant| 7.9.10 @ 5:12PM

This is one Federal judge who needs to be forcibly removed from his 'bench' so as to protect the rest of the country from his version of 'STUPIDITY'.
It is amazing how idiots, such as this judge, are actually graduating from law schools in this country. We need better exit exams just to keep the liberals from destroying our justice system.

Yosemeti Sam| 7.10.10 @ 1:12AM

A carefully choreographed cynical stunt:

1) Engage an amenable judge - to create a states rights issue on traditional marriages.

2) Riding to the 'rescue' is the BHO DOJ to uphold the scared honor of a straight citizenrys' ideals of the concept of a UNIVERSALLY accepted marriage.

3) Ergo - vote Democrat in November. Cause them Democrats - them's in your corner.

How 'transparent' can them Leftoids be?

LOL.

AMcA| 7.11.10 @ 11:50PM

There's a fundamental flaw in what you're arguing here: under our scheme of government, the Congress does not get to enact statutes that prevent some portion of the Constitution from applying to certain issues ("What it does is prevent Massachusetts from using the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution to impose same-sex marriage on unwilling states and the federal government.").

Statutes do not constrain the Constitution. The Constitution constrains statutes.