In response to
Who's Afraid of Federalism?
RCJ
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 1:23 PM
In response to
The Right Opinion
-
More Questions Than Answers
-
The NLRB's School-Door Stand
-
Paranoid or Prescient?
-
Low-Skilled Workers Get Raw Deal Under Obamacare
-
Obama and 'Overreach'
-
The Beauty of Confusion
-
The President's Morehouse Address
-
Obama's Scandals -- and His Media Co-Conspirators
-
It Wasn't Malaria
-
Progressivism: A Scandal Unto Itself
-
The Genius of Jerry Garcia
-
The Obama Crony in Charge of Your Medical Records
- More Opinion
Policy and Analysis
Our Mission
The Patriot Post's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
First, I am absolutely opposed to same-gender marriage. I find the idea morally repugnant (God calls it an abomination) and socially unwise. Having said that, I'm also not a big fan of eroded fedarlism. It seems though, in this case, that states' rights are trying to dictate Federal policy. I think the entire matter could be settled by leaving state policies to the states & stop funding Federal programs that aren't Constitutional to begin with.There are some questions I would have about the matter even beyond my suggested "solution." National defense is a Constitutional mandate for the Federal government. Does that mean the Army must recognize a "marriage" between two men or two women, granting all the appropriate spousal benefits? I'm sure there are other troublesome examples, but this seems to get my point across.I don't remember the particulars in Massachussets, but I don't believe that the acceptance of same-gender unions was based on vox populi, but rather on vox politico. Perhaps such laws should be revisited by the people, and not the politicians.