A short response to Shane’s post: Problems with Tauro’s DOMA Ruling.
Finally a federal judge stands up for states rights under the 10th amendment and the “Right” condemns the ruling. One example, Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro’s ruling “judicial activism” and said Tauro was a “rogue judge.” WHAT?!?! Just because you don’t agree with the consequences of the ruling, doesn’t make it ‘judicial activism’ from a ‘rogue judge’.
For those who have a problem with the ruling please point out where in the constitution the federal government gets the authority to define marriage. It does not. And if you seek to twist and turn some provisions like the “commerce clause” or “general welfare” then don’t come crying when the left does the same to support their unconstitutional agenda.
For those who want to see this issue resolved in a constitutional manner you have two choices. 1) fight it at a state level or 2) a constitutional amendment which would allow the federal government jurisdiction over the manner.
Shane made the point that the federal government should be able to make the rules regarding where federal funds go, and therefor can define marriage. This does make some sense, but it is a catch-22. This is the same rational that the federal government uses to micromanage the affairs of every citizen, such as dictating what must be taught to our children in public schools. Do it our way or forfeit your money. This is a dangerous mechanism our government has used to usurp more and more power away from local control. More about this can be seen in my previous post 11 Reasons Iowa Should Reassert Her Sovereignty.
I hope to expand on this next statement in a future post when I have more time to elaborate more on the details but the issues comes down to this: The government has no business in granting marriage licenses. Anyone can call themselves married, the true definition is defined by God, not government. The government just wants to use it to manipulate benefits to buy votes, and get the fee they charge you to get the license. The fact that I had to go to the government and ask their permission to get married is ridiculous. Marriage is a covenant between me, my wife and God, government does not fit into that equation. If we don’t want government to grant baptism licenses, allowing a government official decide who can and can’t get baptized, why on earth would we grant them that power over marriage?