When viewed through the prism of 'state's rights' the author is correct. Since the issues addressed in DOMA are not enumerated as federal rights they must accrue to the states. Although personaly opposed to homosexual marriage I am more opposed to the juggernaut of federal usurpation of state's rights.

If homosexuual "marriages" performed in one state must be "recognized" by all states, so must concealed carry firearms licenses, doctor's lecenses, and every other type of authority granted by any states. Let's see what Massachusetts has to say about someone from Maine carrying a concealed firearm in Boston Common.

I agree with you Jude! I'm going to research every law and statute in every state and I will have a brief case full of state and local laws that suit every action and freedom now denied me in California. I will demand that my life be ruled by a buffet of laws passed around the country that suit my needs. I'll even cite a international law if I found none here to my liking!. Designer laws! I like it ! Or anarchy if you like?

Remember, DOMA was in defense from activist judges that seemed to view themselves above Congress and States rights. Demanding that legislatures pass certain laws they deem necessary is a bastardization of the Constitution which is the problem with social justice judges these days. The agreement of our representatives (both Houses and signed by Clinton) was that marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman period! I'm sorry Steve(ex.) can't have his male partner buried next to him in a Government cemetery. Have they considered private cemeteries? Where does this whining end?

Remember, DOMA was in defense from activist judges that seemed to view themselves above Congress and States rights. Demanding that legislatures pass certain laws they deem necessary is a bastardization of the Constitution which is the problem with social justice judges these days. The agreement of our representatives (both Houses and signed by Clinton) was that marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman period! I'm sorry Steve(ex.) can't have his male partner buried next to him in a Government cemetery. Have they considered private cemeteries? Where does this whining end?

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.

It is terrible that our personal bias and morality is taken to the extreme that we discriminate against a fellow citizen of this country. Two men or women being married causes me no harm nor weakens my marriage. They should be allowed to join in the same benefits of any other two citizens (man and woman) that are married. Every gay and lesbian person was produced by a heterosexual couple so if you really want to stop gay marriage then stop having children. If you believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman then that is fine, but your beliefs are not supposed to be the basis of law, which is supposed to apply to all citizens equally. If there is a benefit established by the government (tax break) for being married then it should be available to any two citizens that are willing to become a single entity under that law.

I love how Massachusetts, one of the original 13 colonies, has allowed their Constitutionally mandated State Rights authority to be eroded by the inferior rights of the Federal Government to the point of non-existence and NOW decide that they are entitled to protection as stated in the Constitution. They have given away their legacy for the past 100 years and finally decide now is the time to draw a line in the sand. You can't have it both ways Massachusetts.

I did not expect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be found unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds. While it's true that the Constitution doesn't define "marriage," the federal government has complicated the issue by taking a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). Therefore this is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else.

Straight couples have never had to jump through these kinds of hoops. Thanks to the "Full Faith & Credit" clause, if any Straight couple flies off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and gets married by an Elvis impersonator, that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. But because of DOMA, Gay couples are held to a different (and hence unconstitutional) legal standard.

The only way marriage can be a "States Rights" issue is for the federal government to get out of the marriage business completely, and do away with the 1,138 benefits it grants to married couples. Tell me how thrilled most married couples would be with THAT.

XCpt -

I accept your belief that a homosexual couple does not affect me personally - but I would disagree that allowing such a couple to 'marry' does no harm. Marriage is a religious recognition of a union between man and woman in all cultures I know of; there may be civil recognition of homosexual couples, but that is not a marriage - calling it such does degrade the ideals of marriage, much as allowing divorce for any reason has, as shacking up has, . . . but I diverge. When the federal government (or state government) gave special recognition to marriages, it was to encourage marriage, to encourage population growth - something that a homosexual union will not do. Should the federal government be promoting population growth with special incentives or breaks? Yes, there are good reasons to support such incentives - but those incentives make no sense to when marriages bare no fruit, but then the issue of 'fairness' comes in, and politicians are always looking to extend ANY benefit to as many constituents as possible because that may mean more votes. No matter which side they are on, ALL politicians want more votes!

Too many people don't realize or understand the costs to society associated with homosexuality. They don't realize that the gay & lesbian subculture has higher rates of disease (for a multitude of reasons, not just sexual [dis]orientation). They don't realize that the rate of sexual predation on both minors and adults is higher among gays & lesbians than it is among heterosexuals. They don't realize the depth of emotional scarring that the victim of such predation suffers, usually for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, this isn't a matter of "you leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone." Moral convictions aside, there is a very real and terrible cost to society because of this "lifestyle choice."

I will grant that my beliefs and opinions are not to be the only basis for law in this land, but they absolutely must and do shape my voice in any public debate. It is the collective voice of the people (vox populi), carrying the collective opinions of those people to our elected representatives, that should determine the laws of this land. The question then becomes whether or not our elected "representatives" listen and represent all the people or only the vocal minority.

By the way, I'd be willing to listen to arguments about the moral neutrality of homosexuality when they can start birthing their own babies. Has no one else notice that all the so-called higher species procreate through the union of male-female, not male-male or female-female?

A very interesting argument. In the end, it's the structure of government, the Constitution, that must be protected because without it all law is promiscuous. The federal government should not be in marriage law at all, nor should the States be limiting the right to have and bear arms. Why? Because the Constitution says so.

For social conservatives, the answer to all this is simple: get the federal government out of all the entitlement projects to which they are not entitled to advocate and finance with the dollars of the people. That eliminates most of the conflict of interest here except for the Arlington issue. As for that, the Bible says if a man "...lieth with a man in the manner of a man who lieth with a woman you shall kill them, yes, kill them both: so shall ye put the evil out of Israel." It doesn't say anything about two dead men lying together in the ground. The harm in that I just can not see.

Abu, you are right. But as to the cemetary issue, why is it always about 'what's the the harm if...' If we would only acquisece to what seems an innocent request? What about protocol, tradition and history? There is no doubt that buried in that ground are men who would vehemently object to what they would construe as a desecration of hallowed ground. What about that harm and the harm to the living who object. How about this; what's the harm if they go and get buried in one of the thousands of cemetarys that have no objection to such an arrangement. How about I get buried next to my '69 GTO that I love, whats the harm in that? That is why it is always wise in questions of decorum to revert to the ingrained if not clearly stated traditions currently in existence. That way everyone knows what is in store for them or as so many like to say, a level playing field.

I don't agree at all with you RJC. If the voice of the people were to be the sole authority for the rule of law, there'd be no need for a Constitution. The Constitution would just say "Vox Populi - that's the ticket!" It doesn't. It says over and over "Congress shall make no law..." America is a Constitutional Republic with representational, not direct, democracy.

The purpose of the Constitution is to "bind straightly" the representatives with its chains. Clearly marriage is not within the purview of the federal government. It belongs to the States or the People.

Even if you are right in all you say about homosexuality, perverting the rule of law by unhinging it from the Constitution is NOT the way to go. Argue your case in your State, as in CA's prop 8: that's where this debate belongs.

Caseace: I concede your point that "what's the harm" is not always the way to go and much harm is done that way. The road to hell and all that... But a GTO? That's going a bit far. The feelings of the dead? You're joking, surely. Sorry - I didn't mean to call you Shirley.

Look: this isn't a hot issue for me. I'm more concerned about basic governmental structure and the primary points are about unentitled entitlements so I thank you for your agreement on the greater matter. Since the federal government has no place in marriage law, I think this will inevitably be a Court decided issue.

I love the selectivity here. How is it Federalism to say that if one state recognizes gay marriages, then they all must? You can't have it both ways. There is no "choice." If Iowa or some other state passes it, then my state would HAVE to acquiesce to the union, whether we wanted gay marriages or not, because the Fed. says you have to give them Medicare survivor benefits or whatever other Federal entitlement. Equal protection trumps Federalism, the Fed. and liberals get what they want, and to hell with what my state, or any other state, might want for its citizens? All you're doing is swapping what's onerous for one constituency and replacing it with something that is onerous for another. You can say that all states having to recognize gay marriage is "fair" or the "humanitarian" thing to do, but Federalism doesn't enter into it by swapping DOMA for the Fourteenth Amendment. Still a Federal mandate.

Abu, It is hard for me to have an attitude of 'live and let live', when our opposition's attitude is 'kill or critically injure' -rhetorically speaking of course.

The Feds got into "the marriage business" when it passed Social Security, which was sold as a way to provide aid to widows and orphans. Now come the gays and lesbians wanting to broaden the beneficiary pool, which necessarily takes money from the widows and orphans originally targeted for benefits. So gay marriage is not a socially-neutral, live-and-let-live proposition.

I would argue that states define marriage and the Fed was wrong to pass Social Security for that reason. Being a 10th Amendment issue, states define marriage, so that necessarily restricts where a couple chooses to go and still be considered married. States recognize other states' driver's licenses via reciprocity. The same reciprocity applies to marriage licenses.

Many in Congress a few years back said there was no need for a constitutional amendment that defined traditional. I wonder if they still hold to that idea.

XCpt,

I think you miss the point. While same-sex marriage does not do you any DIRECT harm and you, like many others, have been bombarded by this concept for so long that you rationalize its "goodness" and "equality" with other ideas, the family is the basic composition of society. Without reproduction (which can not be accomplished without unnatural means in same-sex relations), our society will and IS failing. Our culture can not endure when it takes 2.1 children just to sustain our culture, which does not consider the 6+ children overwhelming our culture by sheer numbers from cultures that are hostile to the government and ideals of religion (meaning Christian religion) and the morals that come from that religion.

Same-sex relations are harmful to society in that they contradict and destroy the very basis of society: families (consider the abosolute Law). This makes it harmful to you as well!

Many in Congress a few years back said there was no need for a constitutional amendment that defined traditional marriage. I wonder if they still hold to that idea.

I think, Abu, that you missed my point. I am not in any way advocating a direct democracy. That didn't work for the Greeks, and it would work even less well for us. However, the voice of the people does carry some weight in a representational democracy (republic), giving some direction to the representatives. I also like the tought posited by Edmund Burke a few centuries ago, that an elected representative can sometimes betray his constituents by bowing to their demands when they run contrary to the representative's reason. (Please forgive me for not remembering the exact quote.) Perhaps that is why recognition of same-gender unions has passed in some states: the representatives felt they had appropriately concluded the rightness of the issue. I suspect, though, that it wasn't a right-or-wrong conclusion, but a matter of bowing to a very vocal minority instead of the habitually quiet majority. While all Federal-level legislation must (OK, it doesn't currently, but it should) follow the dictates of the Constitution, there is room for legislation covering the detailed application of Constitutional mandates. That's where our elected officials should listen to vox populi. If they don't represent the will of the people, we really shouldn't call them "representatives."

What I really wonder about, though, is how to strike that elusive balance between states' rights and national consistency. In this particular topic, just because your state recognizes same-gender unions, does that mean mine must also? If that is the case, then my state just lost its sovereignty to your state. Or, if my state passes a state-level constitutional definition of marriage as being one man + one woman, does that nullify your state's recognition of same-gender unions? OK, let's keep the national government's nose out of the states' business, but shouldn't we keep each state's nose out of the other states' business? Shouldn't we keep state policies out of national policies that truly and constitutionally belong to the national government, such as national defense?

I hate to admit it, but I'm not sure I know how to accomplish that. The topic has too many nuances and possibilities. I'm not sure it's possible or desirable to untangle the interwoven state-federal nature of our society, either. I live in Indiana and work in Illinois. I make phone calls to loved ones in New Hampshire, Virginia, Georgia, and Kansas. I buy groceries that are trucked in from Florida, Idaho and Michigan. I buy books from a warehouse in California. Clearly, I'm covered by the laws of multiple states, counties and municipalities, but only one national government. (I'm ignoring any international commerce.) I fear it will take someone wiser than I am to untangle that mess along Constitutional lines. Oh, and that someone definitely is not Mr. Obama.

Billy & Rob Risko,

I don't believe that I have missed the point at all. Establishing a benefit for one citizen, or two, based on a religious practice that is not available to another citizen, or two, is prejudicial to the citizen that is prevented from enjoying the benefits established by the government for participation in marriage.

While marriage may be a religious recognition of the union between a man and a woman the government has takent that and made it into a recognition of property rights. The concept of rule of law is that all citizens are treatly equally under it and should receive the same protections or benefits available to another citizen - all male, female, black, white, old, young, heterosexual, homosexual, blonde, brunette, blue-eyed, brown-eyed etc. American citizens.

I have been married for twenty years but my wife and I did not have children. We did nothing to prevent it, we just didn't have them. To suggest that as a working couple that did not reproduce we, or a gay couple, are harmful to society is about the dumbest thing I have heard in years.

The thing that is harmful to society is the mentality that one group of citizens should receive benefits that are unobtainable to another group of citizens based solely on individual morality. Neither the Federal or State governments have any business in defining what marriage is, or limiting it to specific genders, if there is some tangible benefit associated with it. Somehow "created equal" has turned into "created equal but not if we don't like it" and the premise of the right to pursuit of happiness doesn't apply if you are gay.

Restricting access to the benefits of marriage is not a measure of morality, it is just discrimination against a member of society that you don't particulary care for. "A little discrimination" has a tendency to spread to other members of society when it is accepted.

Xcpt, I'm afraid you are indeed missing the point. First, not giving spousal rights to same-gender partners isn't a policy based on religious practices. As I noted previously, there are definite and severe societal costs accrued because of that lifestyle. It is quite appropriate for governments, at various levels, to deny privileges to individuals or groups who cause or bring increased risk of harm to the rest of society. This is why criminals are locked up when they choose to participate in lawless behavior.

Second, spousal benefits are not a delineated right within either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. No one is prevented (key word) from enjoying those benefits through the practice of heterosexual marriage. If, however, some people choose to not participate in heterosexual marriage, either because of sexual [dis]orientation or simply a decision to remain single, that lack of participation does not in any way, shape, kind or form constitute discrimination.

Third, marriage is not merely a religious recognition of male-female union. Marriage is also a civil acknowledgement of a commitment between two people. That commitment has, unfortunately, eroded of late as evidenced by the high divorce rate. In both the religious and the civil aspects, there is an historic standard of male-female marriage, not same gender unions.

Fourth, Like you, I have also been married over 20 years (23 in October) and also don't have kids. Like you, it wasn't a choice; kids just didn't happen. What I realize is that I'm not being punished for not having kids, but I haven't enjoyed some of the incentives that governments offer to encourage people to have kids (and those incentives are not limited to married couples). No one has suggested that you or I have harmed society, but only that we haven't participated in some of the incentives available to all adults who want to live "within the rules." Again, incentives are a benefit, not a right.

Finally, you must realize that this topic is not only a subject of morality, whether my moral views or yours. You seem to think I'm against it solely because of my moral views; does that mean you're not against it solely because of your moral views? Yes, I have strong religious convictions about homosexuality. If anyone hasn't figured that out from all of my postings, they aren't reading very closely. But that isn't my only reason for being opposed to same-gender unions, nor is it the basis for any legislation of which I am aware. Keep in mind that individual morality and intelligent reason are not mutually exclusive realms of thought. Just because I practice and believe in a certain moral standard does not mean that there are no other considerations on this topic or others. So, spousal benefits are not "unobtainable...based solely on individual morality." If that were the case, the same argument could be applied to cases of theft or murder. Because I believe these things to be moral infractions (violating God's law) doesn't mean they aren't or shouldn't also be civil/criminal infractions. To use your phrasing, restricting access to the benefits of marriage is not a measure of discrimination, but is a means of protecting society from unnecessary harm.

I am not against same sex marriage because my moral views are my own and the law is supposed to apply to everyone equally. The claim that homosexual marriage is harmful to society has no basis in fact, only in fear. Where is the empirical data that showed any period in history where homosexual marriages were approved and society crumbled as the direct result of that? The so called "crimes against society" are nothing more than a social ploy to further criminalize and regulate behaviour that doesn't fit someone else's moral view.

For some people the Declaration of Independence would read better if it was written "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (except for gay men), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (except for marriage if you are gay).

If you want to know if a law is discriminatory then insert any adjective and see how it reads.

If a law was passed that defined marriage as between one blue eyed man and one blonde haired woman you would immediately cry foul (assuming you did not fit the moral mold). Society is all the citizens, not just the ones that are the "normal" part of it. Removing blue eyed and blonde does not make that law non-discriminatory, only less so.

And I think it is terrible that you equate the marriage of homosexuals to a crime that society must be protected from. They are just two citizens that want to enjoy the same benefits offered by the government to other blue eyed and blonde citizens.