The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Not-So-Mighty Quin

Text Size

The Not-So-Mighty Quin

By Aaron Goldstein on 2.25.11 @ 1:14AM

To say that Quin Hillyer disliked my article on concurring with the Obama Administration's decision to discontinue defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court would be an understatement.

In fact, Hillyer e-mailed me beforehand to demand that I "correct/withdraw/amend it so as not to cause any more embarrassment." The embarrassment is his alone. Needless to say, I declined to do so. Besides Ross Kaminsky, another regular American Spectator contributor, liked the article. One article. Two opinions. Isn't America great?

Clearly, my article hit a raw nerve with Hillyer. Yet if you strip away all the sound and fury there is little in the way of substance to his objections. For instance, Hillyer writes, "Obama's decision ONLY affects Section 3 of DOMA. That's it." Yet consider what I wrote at the beginning of the article:

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."

So I'm not sure why Hillyer is slagging me over Section 3 of DOMA when I fact mentioned it. Perhaps he didn't get past reading the first sentence of my article. How else do you explain the following passage:

Secondly, as for the rest of DOMA, which is NOT at issue in the president's decision yesterday, it absolutely does leave the definition of marriage to the state and local level for purposes of state and local law, despite your ignorant claims to the contrary. What DOMA does is say that a state that does NOT wish to recognize a homosexual marriage of ANOTHER state, for purposes of its own state laws, is free not to do so. DOMA therefore PROTECTS state and local decision-making, rather than abuses it. This isn't a matter of opinion; it's fact. That's what the law does. You have utterly mis-described it. Your argument on grounds of federalism is therefore ass-backwards.

Well, I guess I can be grateful that Hillyer for his selective use of block letters. Yet I don't see how anything I've written warrants such vitriol. I simply asked why the federal government is in the business of defending marriage when it is a matter best settled at the state level whether through the legislative process (as is currently happening in Maryland) or through referenda (as was the case in Maine in November 2009). I simply don't see the need for federal involvement. Washington just gets in the way. So I reject Hillyer's assertion that "DOMA protects state and local decision-making" is a matter of fact rather than opinion and so does Bob Barr who calls DOMA a case of "one-way federalism":

It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws - including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits - has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Let us not forget that Barr authored DOMA and has now come to regret what his creation unleashed. It's not everyday that a politician publicly repudiates his own legislation.

As for President Obama, one can certainly fault him for his decision especially in view of the fact his Administration spent the first half of his term defending DOMA. Yet this is certainly not the first time the Executive Branch has declined to defend a law in federal court. Back in November 1992 the first Bush Administration announced it wouldn't defend lawsuits brought against the federal government by cable operators against the "must-carry" regulation requiring cable operators to carry local programming. It is worth noting that the 41st President opposed the regulation and had vetoed the law enacting it but the veto was overturned by a Democratic controlled Congress. The Clinton Administration reversed the decision and would prevail in the Supreme Court against the cable operators. I don't deny that President Obama's decision with regard to DOMA is both highly unusual and was made for dubious reasons but he has precedent on his side.

In the final analysis, it is worth reminding Hillyer this isn't the end of the world. The Obama Administration's decision doesn't guarantee DOMA will be either repealed or struck down. But if it is repealed or struck down then look for a movement in Congress to either reintroduce DOMA under a different name or for renewed efforts in support of a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. Of course, if DOMA does outlast the Obama Administration then there's a good chance a Republican Administration will undo this measure. Life will go on.

View all comments (77) | Leave a comment

ehb001| 2.25.11 @ 2:02AM

The salient point about this whole affair with the DOMA is that Mr. Obama has no right to pronounce a law unconstitutional. Is he a Supreme Court Justice now? I must have missed that. And how can he just decide not to enforce a law which is still on the books? This is not a decision for him; this is a decision for Congress. If he wants to lobby for change, he is free to so do. He has no right to decide it is a bad law and tell Justice to quit enforcing it.

Mike| 2.25.11 @ 9:49AM

ehb001,
President Obama is continuing to enforce DOMA which he believes is an unconstitutional law. He is not going to use taxpayer money to defend the law. The issue will be adjudicated in the Supreme Court.

Last time I looked, the Constitution gives the President, just like every other citizen, the right to express his views. Who are you, sir, to strip the President of his constitutional rights?

Wayne | 2.25.11 @ 12:17PM

So the next president in your opinion can refuse to enforce ObamaCare. What a simple solution.

Mike| 2.25.11 @ 1:09PM

Wayne,

Notice that I said the president is enforcing the law which he thinks is unconstitutional. He will continue to do so while the court adjudicates. If the court determines the law is constitutional, the President will continue enforcing. If not, he won't.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 1:16PM

He has an obligation to defend the law. He can say what he wants. He as an obligation to defend the law.

Mike | 2.25.11 @ 5:40PM

He is Occam.

Only the deranged syndrome Obama haters or the totally obtuse don't get it.

Handy| 2.25.11 @ 1:37PM

I believe that Aaron is a strong girl and Quin is a sissy-boy. It's an equal match.

beebop| 2.25.11 @ 5:36AM

Can the two of you argue off line and leave the rest of us out of it?

Just a thought ....

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.25.11 @ 8:42AM

Hey, some of us enjoy the bickering, thank you very much.

Bob K.| 2.25.11 @ 9:39AM

You have a point there Phil.

Maybe Regnery, RETjr and Wlady want to make this blog more accessible to voyeurs?

Or maybe they want to send a message to the readers that they are having internal problems with the philosophy of cultural conservatism that they want to portray to the Main Stream Drive By Media?

Maybe we will see these two guys duking it out on O'Reilly on FOX soon?

Who knows, maybe all the AS bloggers can get together in a kind of "Steel Cage Match" to display to the Left the solidarity the Conservatives really have on this issue? Make it a big feature like Professor Codevilla's "The Ruling Class!"

Ricco| 2.25.11 @ 9:40AM

The dialogue between the two writers is the best part. Bickering? So what. Make this blog the public square of ideas where point and counter-point are brought forward, especially for those on the same side of the aisle.

Unless of course you want to turn this into some sort of FreeRepublic-esque site where group think orthodoxy rules and vitriol towards differing ideas are deleted, banned other otherwise not allowed.

Bob K.| 2.25.11 @ 10:03AM

Yes, why bother with a display of solidarity in the fight against the attack on the traditional values of our Nation by the left? Unity never helped anybody. Right. That is why the left has been in such a state of disarray since Roosevelt. Right?

Mike| 2.25.11 @ 9:51AM

beebop,

I, for one, am enjoying this on-line fight. It is good to see that Comrade Quin has not yet completely turned TAS into the right wing Pravda.

Bob K.| 2.25.11 @ 10:12AM

Exactly!
As Ricco says "make this blog the public square of ideas where point and counter-point are brought forward, especially for those on the same side of the aisle."

Just like Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid see that it is done in the Democratic caucus.

"In Unity there ain't no Strength."

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 1:19PM

If I recall correctly, Clint and I don't always agree...

quite frankly, I think this is a polite exchange of views, unlike, say, me calling Clint a Terrorist Catamite, or his All Words Capitalized Retort Which Will Follow.

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 1:54PM

Tool Job is fixated with Tea Party Clint & The Tea Party Mission Statement because We don't get on our knees & Asskiss Tool Job's Personal Israel Firster Obsessional Agenda.

See A Shrink, Self-Help Shrink.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 3:02PM

"Ring, Ring." Drool.

Thanks, Clint. You are a victim of Classical Conditioning. Look that up, my favorite Catamite.

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 3:31PM

The Fixated Israel Firster Whacker, Tool Job is A Bus callin' A Lemon Pie Yellow, when it comes to Tool Job's Pavlovian Slobbering over Israel.

Catamite: Tool Job hopes His Cat-a-mite let Tool Job hump him, since Tool Job's Dog ran away.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 3:04PM

Most Tea Partiers are Pro-Israel, Clint. Don't wrap up the Tea Party in your Racist agenda (Arabs as "Sand Monkeys?" Really.).

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 3:49PM

Uh Oh ! Tool Job Is Obsessing On Israel & Tea Party Clint Again.

Take Two Shock Treatments & Call Me In The Morning.

LSinAZ| 2.25.11 @ 6:55AM

I think Mr. Goldstein's point in his earlier post regarding the Fact that "marriage" is simply a legal contract, therefore pertains to Law, is exactly correct and on point.

This brings to bear the language found in the 14th Amendment "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Additionally, the US Constitution specifically states at Art 4, Sec1 that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other State."

Additionally, I would point out that I can not find any Enumerated Power found at Art 1, Sec 8. for congress to define marriage to begin with, except as it applied to the 10 miles square (D.C) and other federal lands.

I don't believe I have ever agreed with Obama before, but because I contend that DOMA is unconstitutional, I believe it is correct that it not be defended.

PS, beebop, just a thought... you are not forced to read these words, so feel free to absent yourself from this argument.

CountryClassKook| 2.25.11 @ 7:52AM

Where in the Constitution is it stated the President has the power to declare something unconstitutional? He doesn't have that power, and he is REQUIRED to uphold all laws passed by Congress.

LSinAZ| 2.25.11 @ 8:22AM

I will let Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78 answer your question as follows:

""There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than
that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.""

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.25.11 @ 8:44AM

Like Obamacare and Social Security?

LSinAZ| 2.25.11 @ 10:16AM

Phil, in regards to Obamacare, you are exactly correct. However, Social Security is in fact Voluntary, but is treated as De Facto mandatory. That is why congress is exempt. Also, if you have any police officer friends, ask them if they pay into SS. Many do not, because they have an Approved Alternative. Most employees of the Catholic church are also exempt, and there are three counties in Texas that also elected to go the alternate route. Now I wish I had kept the link to that article, as the point made was that these alternatives produced a better rate of return than SS.

Wayne | 2.25.11 @ 12:21PM

I have a good friend who sent the social security commission a letter saying that she dropped out of social security. When they sent her a threatening letter, she circled 5 unconstitutional statements in their letter and sent it back. They never contacted her again.

LSinAZ| 2.25.11 @ 12:44PM

Here is a Politi-Fact article regarding the 3 Texas counties that opted out of Social Security.

http://politifact.com/texas/st.....left-soci/

NotALibertarian| 2.25.11 @ 10:26AM

LSin,
Hamilton would have applied his remarks to the rulings of out-of-control judges as well, had they existed back then. That's what DOMA was about: it was a pragmatic, emergency-measure to stop corrupt judges -- who are more unconstitutional than DOMA, by the way -- from imposing their personal views of marriage on the electorate.

Marriage-agnostics like to pile on social cons (and distract from their support for gay marriage) by complaining that DOMA is unconstitutional(!). Well, so are activist judges. Get rid of them, and we won't need DOMA.

LSinAZ| 2.25.11 @ 12:35PM

Actually, I have perused the decisions of the courts regarding marriage, and they cite the 14th Amendment as their basis for striking down laws like Prop 8. By virtue of that, I would argue again that they complied with the constitution.

You might find reading Federalist 78 interesting as it clearly describes Hamilton's understanding of an independent judiciary being the final insulator of the citizenry from an overactive legislature, or from the tyranny of the majority.

I note that lynch mobs are the ultimate example of tyranny of majority. After all, they all voted to hang the guy.

Curious, do you care that I live alone, and am single? If you don't, why do you care if your neighbor is married to the person of their choice? Can you say exactly which of your rights are infringed by this arrangement?

NotALibertarian| 2.25.11 @ 1:17PM

It is odd that someone who quotes Hamilton is so accepting of court rulings (14th Amendment!) that ignore the obvious, well-documented views of our Founders. The founders did not consider Sexual Proclivities to be a protected right. They did not consider Sexual Proclivities to be another "race" deserving of equal "protection". They considered many of them to be criminal acts, and passed laws against them, accordingly. So either change your position on gay marriage or stop citing Hamilton to bolster your arguments.

Secondly, your decision to live alone does not require students across America to be taught that unnatural sexual practices are normal, rather than accompanied by a host of serious physical and mental health issues (which is the truth). Your decision to live alone does not shut down Catholic adoption agencies. It does not force religious B&B owners to host celebrations for people engaging in what they consider to be gross sin (do you have any Hamilton quotes about the 1st Amendment?). And it does not force our soldiers to room with people who are sexually attracted to them.

It is either sexual deviants' rights, or everyone else's historically-enshrined rights that will be infringed. People who are selling this debate as "equal rights for everyone" are intellectually dishonest. Normal is not the establishment of religion. I side with Normal.

P.S. Invoking the imagery of lynch mobs when there are just as many on the other side is not an effective argument.

LSinAZ| 2.26.11 @ 6:01PM

I will say that the US Constitution was instituted to protect citizens against exactly you. First, you demand that I change my views or stop quoting Hamilton, then you appear to don the cloak of arbiter of "normal". A somewhat dictatorial posture wouldn't you say? Then you go on to cite that some B&B owner was forced to host a celebration for gays, but did not cite a reference, (I don't think DOMA reaches this legal point) that somehow Catholic adoptions were forced to close, again without source. Again, I don't believe DOMA applies here. Then you go on to say that either sexual deviants rights or your rights must be infringed. At least you admit that their rights are being infringed. It seems in your world, law can not be applied equally.

I disagree with your comment regarding lynch mob. Just because there are just as many on the other side does not make it right, and it is the ultimate form of democracy.

So it appears you are quite alright with sacrificing the "obnoxious individual"

Well, if you don't like Hamilton, lets try Madison at Federalist #10 in which he writes about tyranny of the majority (which is why they constituted a Republic chained down by a Constitution)

""From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of
citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or
interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.""

I will however cede the point that repeal of DADT is not a good thing for exactly the reason you state. I will point out however that as of today, military service is Voluntary.

NotALibertarian| 2.26.11 @ 9:45PM

Here's the latest Gay Indignation of the Day: http://www.ksdk.com/news/artic.....n-ceremony
and
Catholic adoption agencies close in Massachussetts due to state laws compelling all agencies to adopt to gay couples:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/artic.....n-ceremony

Are you actually claiming that not legally recognizing someone's sexual relationship is "tyranny of the majority"?

You are abusing the sentiments of Hamilton and Madison to advance a laughable view of our Consitution. They did not consider deviant sexual practices to be a "right" in the way they viewed other rights. All of those laws that the Founders passed in state legislatures against adultery, sodomy, and bestiality would usually stop people from claiming what you are claiming.

My apologies for coming across as demanding. I'll restate: I would cordially suggest either changing your position on gay marriage or no longer citing the founding fathers to imply that they included some kind of hidden right to sexual freedom in the Constitution.

P.S. The Normal to which I refer is not established by me, but through the commonly-accepted arbiters of Normal: science (biology) and human history.

LSinAZ| 2.27.11 @ 7:36AM

Thank you for the source, which I have now read. (only the B&B issue was posted) Please note that I am arguing from a purely LEGAL perspective, not an emotional or religious perspective.

My original post focused solely upon DOMA, a federal law, and I posted the relevant Articles in the Constitution that I think apply.
Both of your cites are State issues, and I would answer thus. The B&B issue is Pending potential action. I agree with you that no person should be Forced to serve another, and I would argue FOR the B&B owner using the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment ""nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."" If you are a proponent of inviolate property rights (which I am) then the finding for the gay couple would In Effect commandeer and "take" the B&B owners property for publicly prescribed "use". In other words, I believe that if the state can demand that you use, or not use, your own property in your own way, then that amounts to a "taking" I think the same thing regarding smoking bans in bars and eateries, as your entrance to any of these establishments is purely voluntary.

Next, regarding the Catholic adoptions. Though the source was not posted, I will make a couple assumptions, and answer thus. The legal authority to facilitate adoptions is prescribed by law, and laws are required to apply Equally. I don't believe the law demanded that the Catholic's facilitate adoptions to gay couples. I'm thinking that the Catholic's Voluntarily Decided Not To Continue adoptions due to their views. This is a different legal equation, and is distinct from being forced to participate. Is it unfortunate? Yes. But again I'll bet a doughnut the decision to discontinue was a voluntary act. I would note that this remedy is also at the command of the B&B owner.

Insofar as "normal" it is purely a matter of perspective, and you have every right to your opinion. However when it comes to Force Of Law, I balk at your opinion being enforced by the Coercive Force of the state. Remember, that eating dogs is "normal" for the Chinese, and that female mutilation is "normal" in many countries. I abhor both practices, and voluntarily choose not to participate in either, and I choose not to associate with those that do, as is my right. I would actually point out that homosexuality has been around forever, and I would make my case by simply observing that if it did not exist in those ancient times, why would any reference to it be found in the ancient texts. That your religion forbids its practice is perfectly acceptable to me. That you think that the Force Of Law should be brought to bear against those who do not agree is another matter entirely.

Would you be OK with the federal government passing a law that forces women here to wear a veil? If not, why not?

I believe We All have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, as long as my pursuit does not infringe upon your Life, Liberty, and your Pursuit of Happiness. That is why I asked earlier exactly which of your rights were infringed by your neighbor being married or single.

A mental exercise...Is the prohibition of murder a religious or constitutional rights position? You can it is religious, as it is one of the Ten Commandments. However, I would argue that murder infringes the right to life of the deceased, and therefore it is constitutionally proper to use the Force of Law to prohibit such acts.

NotALibertarian| 2.28.11 @ 1:46PM

First off, Massachussetts law requires adoption agencies operating in that state to adopt to same-sex couples. The state's legal system gave Catholic adoption agencies two choices: adopt to gay couples, or be shut down. Claiming the Church's decision to discontinue adoptions was voluntary is like claiming that business taxes are voluntary.

My objection is that you seem to feel that you have an unbiased legal basis for arbitrarily creating what is a completely, new institution under the guise of "equal protection", and then claim that the opposing view is merely wrapped up in "religion". (This is about as effective as me running around and implying that all my opponents are just "perverts". I do not say this to diminish my own faith, but to highlight that there is plenty of secular science that supports my faith.) Europe has tried multiculturalism, and now sees it for the disaster it is.

The State does not facilitate/recognize same-sex relationships any more than it recognizes best-friend relationships or really-close-neighbor relationships for a reason: they hold very little societal value relative to traditional marriage, because they do not naturally produce future citizens. The State does not regard its citizenry as genderless for a very good reason: Such a view is not grounded in reality.

Yet, that is what you advocate.

The point is, that, while insisting the State needs to get out of the marriage-business is a very popular thing to say, it reflects an incomplete understanding of why states in historically-prosperous, functioning societies have recognized marriage.

With marriage, the State is not discriminating against people, but against relationships. Our legal system does this, at times, to the point of criminalizing them: polygamy, because it so commonly results in impoverished children; pedophilia because the State still considers sex to be a significant psychological act; bestiality, because it is considered unnatural and abusive.

There are plenty of non-religious reasons to discriminate against homosexual relationships by refusing to institutionalize them, but that involves acknowledging that Normal actually exists, which you do not seem interested in doing.

NotALibertarian| 2.28.11 @ 1:55PM

I almost forgot the most important relationship in which the State discriminates:
Parent-child.
The state gives a special "discriminatory" status to the parent-child relationship, which allows parents to legally control their own children in ways that unrelated adults are not legally entitled to control others.

NotALibertarian| 2.26.11 @ 9:58PM

One more thing: My point about someone's rights being infringed concerns the fact that the State will either side with Judeo-Christian standards of sexuality, or Pagan standards of sexuality. Both are religions, and to the extent that siding with one religion's sexual mores is the establishment of religion (a point I disagree with), the State ends up "establishing religion".

LSinAZ| 2.27.11 @ 8:18AM

I am going to try to drag you back to a legal argument.

You insist on viewing marriage through the prism of sexuality and religion. I insist upon viewing marriage as a Legal Status. I make my case by simply observing that you must get a marriage LICENSE issued by the state, and you must dissolve this contract via the courts. The contract of marriage simply blends 2 individuals into 1 legal entity, and conveys joint and several liability and mutual benefit. When a marriage is performed in a church, it is by "the powers vested in" the clergy by the state to perform this legal act.

In my opinion, you have every right to abhor this act, and to not participate, and to not associate with those that do. But I don't believe that your opinion should be Forced upon others that disagree via the Law.

NotALibertarian| 2.25.11 @ 1:48PM

Quick version: Using the 14th Amendment to nullify Prop 8 is about as honest as using the Commerce Clause to justify Obamacare.

Mike| 2.25.11 @ 10:16AM

CountryClassKook,

He is upholding (enforcing) the law while it is being adjudicated. He is not using taxpayer money to defend the law, which he believes is unconstitutional, in court. The court will determine if the President's view is correct or incorrect.

Last time I looked this is how the Founding Fathers intended our government to work.

All American American| 2.25.11 @ 10:35AM

Actually Mike I bet if you asked the FFs if they thought a law established by the Federal Govt would be deicided constitutional/unconstitutional by the same Fed Govt--and the States would have NO say in the matter--well, I bet they would see it differently.

Mike | 2.25.11 @ 5:49PM

All American,
You lost me. I don't know if I'm more confused by you understanding of how the branches of the federal government work or your understanding of federalism.

All American American| 2.26.11 @ 9:26AM

Mike, its not hard to lose folks who have such a weak, kindergarten-like understanding of our history.

Try reading the VA & KY Resolutions to see what State Nullification is all about. The idea that the founders believed the Fed Govt would be the final arbitor on its own laws is preposterous.

The States and the People were intended to have more power in our Republic than our federal govt. If the Fed Govt passes a law and a State deems it unconstitutional, it can and should nullify it. In fact our FFs believed they had a moral obligation to.

Lincoln pretty much stripped any semblance of States' Rights away while consolidating power in DC. Now instead of the intended loose confederation of individual States, we have a homogenous nation with power in the hands of the ruling class in DC. The People and the States have no choice because some kook judge in CA or MA rules and all the states must eventually follow.

This is most definately NOT what our Founders intended.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.25.11 @ 7:06AM

When Presidents can pick and choose what laws will be followed and which will not, we not longer have a Constitutional government.

And the reasoning that other Presidents did it is just as bad as a kid stating, "Well Johnny did it."

Stupid precedents do not make for sound reasoning and when a President can make a law go away, what's next? Perhaps you will be made to go away or perhaps the government will determine who you will marry, you won't get a choice.

It's a dangerous precedent and no matter who did it, it does not deserve respect. It's not the way it's supposed to work.

If the law is bad then get rid of it. I personally think it's a stupid law. Next, we'll be hearing that laws concerning your property rights are stupid because you have too much wealth.

Forgive me! It's already happening and it's a slippery slope.

Mike| 2.25.11 @ 10:18AM

Sigh. The right wing propaganda has been, sadly, very effective.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.25.11 @ 12:25PM

If he can choose what laws he likes that's a good example for the rest of us. Let's all pick and choose. Chaos!

Mike | 2.25.11 @ 5:52PM

He's enforcing the law while the court determines the constitutionality of the law. This is not rocket science, Hussein.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.25.11 @ 6:44PM

To: Mike\
If he states a law is unconstitutional then the cat's out of the bag. If you're stupid enough to believe he's defending it stay away from shady looking used car lots.

Mike | 2.26.11 @ 1:24AM

Hussein,
The President can say what he will. The court will determine the matter. And please, Hussein, don't suggest that this court is going to see the issue in the same way the president does. Remember who sits on the benches.

Again, this really is middle school civics.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 1:21PM

Yes, truth tends to be highly effective, doesn't it? If I recall correctly, faced with Truth, Democratic legislators flee to Illinois.

Bob K.| 2.25.11 @ 9:03AM

Why don't you two just leave your private pissing contest "in the closet" instead of inflicting it on the readers.

American Spectator was at one time a dignified publication which has now declined. It continues to hire writers more concerned with their own publicity and celebrity than with the pressing issues of our time.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 1:22PM

Dear, sweet, wonderful Bob,

Civility sucks. Ask Clint. I think he'll agree.

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 1:57PM

Weird Tool Job is fixated on Tea Party Clint.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 3:05PM

"Ring, Ring." Drool.

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 3:52PM

Down Obsessed Tool Job Pavlovian Israel Firster Slobberer.

Go Get In Your Cage.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 3:06PM

You mean David Duke Nazi Boy Clint.

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 3:56PM

Uh Oh !
Fixated Troll Tool Job Plays The Nazi Card.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 3:11PM

Dear Larry,

Finally, a civil and intelligent poster. Let me mention my view, which you can then chew.

The West has a birth dearth. This will cause significant problems, especially as the Islamic World is breeding quite a bit in comparison. Therefore, we must encourage Social Institutions that encourage the birth and proper raising of kids in the West (for Libs: The Birth Dearth is also killing Social Security and Medi/Medi.)---traditional marriage must therefore be encouraged.

This is a societal imperative; therfore, some how we must find the ways to have the Laws follow. You are right to focus on this.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 3:12PM

Why? It bother you, terrorist Catamite, that I focus on you and insult you repeatedly? I'm warming up, boy. This Sand Monkey is just warming up, microcephalic one.

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 3:58PM

Stand Back.
Obsessional Troll, Tool Job makes A Monkey out of Himself, once again.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 1:24PM

It was NEVER dignified. In the 1980s, it had Taki, before his dementia overtook him, noting that Palestinian leaders didn't care for their people as much as they did "Blonde Bimbos." It broke the Clinton/ Paula Jones story. It's edginess is part of its charm.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 3:01PM

Damn. Its edginess, not It's edginess.

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 4:01PM

Oh Lordy!
MensaBoy is havin' trouble spellin' again.

All American American| 2.25.11 @ 9:32AM

Actually, in the "before time," (that is before Lincoln) when our country was still for the most part a Constitutional Republic, the States and the People were a part of the decision-making process on what passes constitutional muster. It is a paradigm shift that we have all been led to believe and sadly accept that ONLY the Supreme Court of the USA can decide what is "constitutional." Thomas Jefferson clearly laid out the vital role State nullification should play in our Republic in the VA & KY Resolutions in 1798 & 99. Northern States routinely cited them and Nullification for failing to enforce (rightfully so) the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.

Instead of crying about it like little girls, conservatives and conservative State AGs around the country should publicly THANK Mr Obama for setting a constitutional precedent. Then, go on to say along those same lines the great State of ___ deems Obamacare unconstitutional and therefore we in ___ will not fund, enforce, etc etc etc any parts of it for the citizens of our great State. Obamacare in null and void in ___.

NotALibertarian| 2.25.11 @ 9:41AM

I simply ask why the federal government is in the business of confirming that water is wet when public opinion on the matter has changed in recent years and continues to evolve . . . Just because this particular change is
1)the product of a deceitful, manipulative campaign on the part of Hollywood and academia
and
2)accomodates the same progressives who have taken over and destroyed liberal states and cities
is
no reason for the federal government to continue to take the wetness of water for granted in the face of so much credible opposition.

Yosemeti Sam| 2.25.11 @ 10:39AM

Yo, BHO deigns to deem the DOMA act unconstitutional.

HAH!

This 'assessment' coming yet from a man who has yet to reveal a PAPER TRAIL of his Harvard law education evincing so-called 'trust me/on my honor' bona fides in constitutional law .

Michael L. Hauschild| 2.25.11 @ 10:48AM

Mr. Goldstein,
You and Kaminski actually exhibit "perspective" and do not play to the audience. I do not always agree with either of you, but your works provide knowledge, accurate analysis, and a perception of events that authors such as Quinn are incapable.

Eric Damon| 2.25.11 @ 11:01AM

DOMA does not mandate what is a marriage at the state level and was never intended to do such. DOMA says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex couples as married for the purposes of receiving federal benefits and the like, and it also protects the differing states from having to accept same-sex marriages originating in other states. Contrary to popular belief, this is an upholding of the federalist ideal in that the federal government refrained from trying to institutionalize a particular policy preference and recognized legislatively that the issue was best left to the diverse states and their citizens to decide.

And this decision is nothing more than politics dressed up in a constitutional argument. There is nothing unconstitutional about allowing the states to decide what marriage is, and there is no Equal Protection issue here outside of the same arguments the gay rights lobby always trots out. But if their logic is correct, to with that it is unconstitutional to have laws that infringe on them because of their behavior, then we cannot have any laws that infringe on anyone. All behaviors would have to be accepted, because to have laws that made them criminal or civilly actionable would thus be an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause, and that would simply lead to anarchy.

JPM| 2.25.11 @ 11:23AM

There are two arguments playing out here and they're both silly. One has to do with process -- is the President entitled to decide for himself that a law is unconstitutional and he won't defend (or enforce it)? The other is substantive -- Does Obama have any basis for concluding that any part of DOMA is unconstitutional? Neither of these questions is a bit difficult.

Obama got the process exactly right and the substance exactly wrong. Of course the President has to determine whether a law is constitutional in the course of deciding what his duty is under the law. And of course, DOMA is constitutional. The idea that there is some equal protection issue is ridiculous, as is the idea that there is some federalism concern involved.

The left has been pushing the absurd idea that the courts have some sort of monopoly on constitutional interpretation for decades. It's sad to see conservatives accepting the left's propaganda as gospel. The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to obey the judiciary. If a law is unconstitutional the President is duty bound to treat it as void, no matter what any court may say on the subject. If he interprets the Constitution erroneously he can be impeached or voted out at the next election. That's the way it works, that's the way it always has worked. Consider, the case of Andrew Johnson. Obama is doing conservatives a favor by squandering the left's investment in promoting judicial supremacy. We shouldn't be getting in his way.

The argument on substance is even more ridiculous. Bob Barr (who long since took the last train to libertarian looneyville) is claiming with a straight face that the federal government can't define the meaning of marriage for purposes of its own statutes without referrence to state law. That isn't just wrong, it's insane. When Congress writes a federal statute the words in that statute mean what Congress wants them to mean, not what some crazy state judges think they should mean. Marriage isn't a contract and it isn't a creation of state law. It is a social institution with roots far deeper than any existing government. To say that a federal definition of marriage as the term is used in federal law represents some threat to state sovereignty is nonsense on stilts.

Obama's argument that denying SSM violates the equal protection clause is beneath contept. You have to ignore the most basic facts of both biology and culture to entertain that argument for a minute. Even Obama and the others who make that argument don't really mean it. It is just a thin veil over the long-standing left wing effort to dismantle bourgeois morality the better to construct utopia on the ruins. Any conservative or libertarian assists this effort in any way is an idiot.

Wayne | 2.25.11 @ 12:25PM

If equal protection is so important to Obama then why doesn't everyone get a waiver from ObamaCare? What makes some people more equal than others? Obama is a Chicago politicians where where equal protection is a joke.

Capt G| 2.26.11 @ 6:10PM

Well said, JPM.

Oldefarte| 2.25.11 @ 12:25PM

Again, NATURAL LAW is the basis [and foundation] for MAN'S/WOMAN'S LAW. The former is supreme, while the latter is humanly flawed and politically partisaned. Man/woman was born with FREE WILL, hence homosexuality, flawed law,etc. Man/woman will be judged at death as to their fulfillment of/adherence to the NATURAL LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Larry| 2.25.11 @ 1:16PM

I am inclined to believe that SCOTUS will use the 10th Amendment again (which I think would be good reasoning), to strike down DOMA. It would be the ONLY reason to strike it down, none else. If SCOTUS is consistent then, they would uphold the California constitutional amendment case, which is making its way up the chain through the Ninth Circuit.

Nevertheless, Aaron, this leaves one problem: the full faith and credit clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires each state to give full faith and credit to the "Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other State." While sound in principle, should this section apply to same-sex marriage? Should a state be morally compelled to recognize those marriages approved of in other states of which they do not approve? What are the economic consequences of this? I suggest that the argument over these issues will be even more vociferous than your arguments with Quin Hillyer. And I think it causes conservatives to shoot themselves in the foot.

All it convinces me is that we need a Federal constitutional amendment to do what DOMA tried to do in the first place. DOMA was passed because the GOP controlled Congress knew it did not have the votes back then to steer through a Constitutional amendment. Now, we must do the hard thing, because the alternative will, in my opinion, eventually result in the de facto acceptance of same-sex marriage in all 50 states, against the will of their citizens, and with untold social and economic consequences including the destabilization of our society.

JPM| 2.25.11 @ 3:13PM

The Full Faith and Credit clause doesn't require one state to recognize the validity of another's marriage licenses any more than it requires one state to accept another's teaching certificates, bar admissions or medical qualifications. The FF&C argument against DOMA is as silly as all the others.

Larry| 2.25.11 @ 1:28PM

One more observation: I think all of you guys at TAS, including most of the posters above, should confront the issue I have raised head-on. Don't skirt it with skirmishes of the kind Aaron and Quin are engaged in. This issue must be taken on directly. Anything else is a waste of time.

sestamibi| 2.25.11 @ 5:04PM

Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but this looks to me suspiciously like a stage fight to promote blog hits.

Matt X| 2.26.11 @ 7:30PM

Wow, American Spectator allows one of it's writers to basically ridicule another on it's blog. I don't think that I would have posted a private email from a co-worker on my company's website.

Doesn't American Spectator have an editor? This kind of thing makes them look like amateurs.