Navigation

Tag Archives | gay marriage

Left and Right Agree to Disagree

By on January 2, 2013 in Federalism 18

After an embittered presidential election, a never-ending kabuki on Washington finances, and now a fierce debate over property rights, many would be surprised to know that members from opposite sides of the political spectrum have found some common ground. Betsy Woodruf at National Review Online sure was. She was shocked to find agreement between the Republican Governor of Illinois, Mitch Daniels, and Tom Dickenson of Rolling Stone magazine regarding medical marijuana and federalism. Both, it seems, favor letting the states determine their own drug policy, even though they may not agree on what each state ultimately decides.

First, note that agreement between the two parties happens more often than not. In principle they all agree on war, debt, entitlements, taxation, police statism, drones, the central bank, socialistic healthcare, prohibition, and many other issues. Of course they disagree on just how much debt there should be; if the military ought to bomb the people of third-world countries or drop bombs and machine-gun them; and whether individuals should forfeit 35 percent of their income or only 33 percent. Some diversity of thought.

But what’s noteworthy about this particular case is that each can agree because neither is trying to force the other into submitting to a single policy. Here we see one of the great things about decentralized government: it tends to reduce conflict by allowing various groups to “live and let live.” This is isn’t possible when all policy decisions are made by one body, when a polity becomes too big. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Is Gay Marriage the Key to Ending Obamacare?

By on July 16, 2010 in Judiciary, State Sovereignty 2
In David Kopel’s July 9th post, he shares with readers some of the legal reasons why the recent Gay Marriage decision was a boon for Tenthers.  Though current nullification efforts do not depend on the courts for validation, this article is important to study.  Many Americans still find themselves as disciples of the judiciary & for debates with people of this mindset, you can share with them some of the points below.  It seems that even the courts are taking a renewed interest in our Tenth Amendment. Continue Reading →
Continue Reading

Proof the DOMA Ruling was Spot On.

By on July 10, 2010 in Federalism, Judiciary, State Sovereignty 4

Well, “proof” is defined by perspective, right? All the proof I need on this one is just one man’s name.

Jack Balkin.

Jack is a “leading constitutional scholar” from Yale. What does that mean? He advocates the living constitution. You know the one – the kind of constitution that morphs and changes based on the whims of politicians, judges, and Jack himself.

I consider him one of the worst of the worst in this field. And, what did he have to say about the DOMA case? Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Federal Court Makes Rare Ruling in Favor of the 10th Amendment

By on July 8, 2010 in Judiciary, Law 11

A Federal Judge today ruled in favor of the Tenth Amendment, which is an unusually rare result. What was the issue? DOMA and gay marriage. From the WSJ blog:

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from giving pension and other benefits to same sex couples, is unconstitutional, reports the Associated Press.

Tauro wrote that the 1996 law ran afoul of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment,” Tauro wrote.

The problem, though, is that they don’t apply this same principle to everything. They should – and need to.

A few quick points. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Tenthers from the Left?

By on February 27, 2010 in Tenthers 3

Yup, that’s right – they come from the left too. Ashby Jones reports on the Tenther movement from the liberal perspective at the Wall Street Journal:

We’ve written a bit in recent months about the so-called “Tenther” movement. It’s a push by many, mostly on the right side of the political spectrum, to invoke the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution to justify shooting down of new federal legislation in the age of President Obama.

But a lawsuit playing out up in Massachusetts has reminded us that Tenth Amendment arguments can come from those wearing other political stripes, as well.

Last week, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley moved for summary judgment in a lawsuit, filed last July, brought by the Bay State against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In its lawsuit, Massachusetts has argued that DOMA’s definition of marriage violates the 10th Amendment as well as the Constitution’s Spending Clause by forcing “the Commonwealth to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds in connection with two joint federal-state programs.”

Sooner or later these opposing sides are going to realize that it’s best to get the federal government out of just about everything that it currently does. The founders created a system where the most difficult, the most divisive issues would be kept where they belong – close to home.

Continue Reading

Are Same Sex Marriage Advocates Actually Tenthers?

By on February 25, 2010 in Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 1

martha-coakleyThey are if they oppose the federal Defense of Marriage Act on constitutional grounds. Which, as it turns out, is exactly what supporters of same sex marriage are doing in Massachusetts.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Last week, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley moved for summary judgment in a lawsuit, filed last July, brought by the Bay State against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In its lawsuit, Massachusetts has argued that DOMA’s definition of marriage violates the 10th Amendment as well as the Constitution’s Spending Clause by forcing “the Commonwealth to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds in connection with two joint federal-state programs.”

Wow, Martha’s complaint sounds an awful lot like it could have been lodged against ObamaCare!

One can only hope that cases like this will help bring more people on both sides to the inevitable conclusion that if federalism can work to release the pressure of one divisive cultural issue in 50 different directions, it can do the same for all such issues.

Here’s a novel idea: Rather than citing the Constitution when we like it, and ignoring it when we don’t, let’s stop asking or allowing the feds to exercise any power that isn’t specifically enumerated, from subsidizing health care to defining marriage to prosecuting the war on drugs.

Continue Reading

Massachusetts Says Federal Marriage Law Unconstitutional

By on February 19, 2010 in Delegated Powers 5

From the Associated Press:

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley says a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman interferes with her state’s right to regulate the institution.

Coakley’s office filed a lawsuit in July challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In papers filed late Thursday, Coakley asks a judge to deem the law unconstitutional without holding a trial on the lawsuit.

Coakley argues that regulating marital status has traditionally been left to the states. She also says the federal law treats married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently on Medicaid benefits and burial in veterans’ cemeteries.

Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage and is the first to challenge the law.

The essential question, of course, is this: Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to pass a law defining marriage?

Is it somehow necessary and proper to maintaining post roads? Nope. Is it related to the power to coin Money? Not there either.

Of course, the politicians and the courts would generally claim that this has something to do with the “general welfare” clause or the “interstate commerce clause.” But any honest reading of the original intent and meaning of the Constitution would render such arguments wrong. So wrong that they’re laughable.

The bottom line is this – the federal government has no constitutional authority, whatsoever, to define marriage. That is a social policy – and the federalist advocates of the Constitution promised the People that such policies would be left to the state.

That means that Massachusetts can make marriage legal, and another state can ban it. Or better yet, maybe we should get government out of the marriage business altogether!

Continue Reading

John Perez, Gay Marriage and the 10th Amendment

By on December 12, 2009 in News, State Sovereignty 11

Most people have strong feelings about gay marriage. The idea of same sex unions is a topic that places various moral values in direct conflict, a recipe for violent struggle time and time again throughout history. As supporters of state sovereignty, however, those who rally around the 10th Amendment should find it easy to reach a consensus on one main point- that the Federal government has no place in the discussion.

The fact that DC politicians, who care only for themselves and increasing their own power, have the audacity to involve themselves in a choice as personal as marriage should be an affront to anyone who values liberty and individual freedom. Marriage is an issue that should be discussed at family dinner tables, in churches or anywhere close friends come together- NOT in the halls of congress.

As with the Republican and Democrat categories, it matters not whether someone is a liberal, conservative, gay or straight in this fight to reclaim our republic. The only pertinent question is this: Does a given person or group stand against the further centralization of power in Washington DC, or do they stand with Big Brother and the forces who seek to control and make personal decisions for us?

As a group of people who have ample experience dealing with diminished personal privileges, it is a natural fit for gay rights advocates to join this battle against those who seek to impede the freedoms of all Americans.

Last week in California, John Perez became the first openly gay official to lead any state legislature, in fact declining an opportunity to join the CA senate in order to do so. Though not heralded as widely as our first female speaker of the US house or our first black President, this milestone opens the door for a new chapter in the battle against Federal overreach. A new opportunity has emerged for gay rights activists to rally around this state leader and demand sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. If that opportunity is taken, all Americans, both homosexual and heterosexual, will reap the benefits.

Continue Reading