TPM: Federal Judge Rules Part of DOMA Unconstitutional

nt

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107807

it was in the TPM story. It has a lot of information.

really interesting. Certain self-styled "conservatives" heads are exploding right about now.

the 10th also says that states have the right over anything the feds don't-- that essentially validates the individual states banning gay marriage.

or am I missing something?

was a vesting into a new federal government of some, but not all, of the rights of the various states, all of whom were sovereign states before that time. The 10th Amendment, part of the original Bill of Rights, basically said that those rights of sovereignty that were not specifically vested in the federal government by the states through subscription to the Constitution, as amended, are reserved to the various States. In other words, if the States didn't give those rights to the federal government, then they still possess them. And, by logical extension, may still exercise them.

This was the basis of the old "States' Rights" theory. Many believed that argument to be dead and buried, in the aftermath of the civil rights struggles of the 60s. Many have argued that the 10th is, and for some time has been, a dead letter. This case would seem to suggest that the argument that the 10th is dead and buried is not necessarily so. Why? If one accepts the argument that the concept of "marriage" is a legal, and not a religious, issue then this ruling apparently concludes that the issue is one for state, and not for federal law.

So, were a state to conclude that, for reasons of public policy, it wished to not accept the concept of gay marriage, under the 10th it would have the right to do so. But that isn't the end of the inquiry. Because, FYI, there is a US Supreme Court case going back some years, the name of which I can no longer remember, that basically concludes that under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution, that if a marriage is legally valid in the state where it was entered into, it is entitled to be considered to be valid in every state in the Union.

And so, that is the state of play. The case in the article is far more interesting to me for the reason that it basically states that the 10th Amendment is Not a dead letter - that it still has validity. This, at least in some circles, could be a Very Big Deal for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Gay Marriage.

I read a lot of things tonite regarding these cases. (after I posted )

I came to a very similar conclusion. This is quite amazing.

Seriously, thank you so much for putting it such succinct words.

Take that jagoffs. Equal Protection the right wingers favorite amendment when it
comes to stealing elections and corporate personhood.


:rofl:

That's not going to be pretty. Wonder if they'll break out the same brief with all the "homosexuality leads to pedophilia" crap in it?

But . . . I have my doubts.