John Galt

'Light tomorrow with today.' -- Elizabeth Barrett Browning --

Friday, July 09, 2010

The Judge Got It Right

I accepted and admired the sentiment.  But the United States government had no business being in this business in the first place. A judge in Massachusetts agrees, but for the wrong reasons:
Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional
By Michael Levenson, Boston Globe

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state." [link]
Had the judge simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit the government to regulate marriage, he would have been spot on.  But this being Massachusetts, and he obviously being a flaming liberal, Tauro had to make it part of his ruling that gay people should have equal protection under the law, when in fact they do.  I, a heterosexual male, can't marry another male either.  We are eqaully protected in that regard.

But the issue goes beyond federal control of our lives.  The states need to get out of the marriage business too.  As I've written before, the government licenses dogs.  And marriages.  Why?