Here's a good analysis of Judge Tauro's court decision to find the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Basically Judge Tauro's argument breaks down to this: The federal government has never interfered with state laws on marriage, so DOMA is unconstitutional because it is a federal law interfering with state matters....
...Except that the federal government has indeed interfered with marriage laws that states have created. How about the Court's stepping in with the oft-cited Loving v. Virginia to which same sex marriage advocates love to refer? Apparently, according to Judge Tauro, the Court isn't part of the federal government.
Here's a quote from the article. I encourage you to follow the link and read the entire thing.
National Review Online:
Anyone with eyes to see would recall at once that Congress was forced to act because of the aggressiveness of unelected judges moving on their own to install same-sex marriage, even against the force of opinion in their own states. And if local judges were summoning the nerve to put across this minor revolution in the laws, it was predictable that federal judges would take the movement to new heights of moral pretension and audacity. Congress, in passing DOMA, was not trying to grab power in new domains. It was seeking rather to counter the aggressive acts of judges, unelected and unconstrained, and to preserve, for the people, that ultimate right to determine the Constitution under which they were governed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment