This should prove very instructive.  It seems a federal judge in Boston ruled on July 8th that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage at the federal level as being only between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.  Among his reasons was that the DOMA violates the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that defining marriage is not one of the powers enumerated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8.

I agree.

However, Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin warns that marriage equality won through the Constitution is too dangerous to be considered a win, because winning arguments on constitutional grounds could endanger federal welfare programs and the supremacy of federal power.

So according to Yale Law School, winning a battle by limiting federal power is actually losing.  The only LEGITIMATE wins come through brute force.

Good to know.

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/105313-gay-marriage-win-progressive-agenda-loss/

AdamLove said :

This should prove very instructive.  It seems a federal judge in Boston ruled on July 8th that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage at the federal level as being only between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.  Among his reasons was that the DOMA violates the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that defining marriage is not one of the powers enumerated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8.

I agree.

However, Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin warns that marriage equality won through the Constitution is too dangerous to be considered a win, because winning arguments on constitutional grounds could endanger federal welfare programs and the supremacy of federal power.

So according to Yale Law School, winning a battle by limiting federal power is actually losing.  The only LEGITIMATE wins come through brute force.

Good to know.

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/105313-gay-marriage-win-progressive-agenda-loss/

It looks like a slippery slope for the progressives to me, actually.  I mean, the way I read it, if the federal govt. can't decide on such issues because it violates states rights then those states that do, in fact, determine that "marriage" is only between a man and a woman can't be sued for such state law.  It looks like there'll be states that do sanction marriage in the LGBT community and states that don't....with no recourse by the progressive/liberals (and, yeah...they're the same thing regardless of the rhetoric and spin otherwise). 

Am I interpreting this correctly here, Adam?

dap916 said :

It looks like a slippery slope for the progressives to me, actually.

...

Am I interpreting this correctly here, Adam?

All except for the "slippery slope" comment. The last thing progressives(no matter what party they belong to) want is a strict interpretation of the constitution. That would expose all their "good intentions" as treasonous power grabs.
 

TPP is correct.  In the article, Professor Balkin (the Yale Law professor who dislikes this ruling) says that the issue isn't so much about same-sex marriage itself, it's the danger that this could set a precedent in which all sorts of legislation enacted since the New Deal could be attacked and repealed because it exceeds the powers delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8.  For that reason, he's willing to throw marriage equality activists from the Left under the bus in order to protect the big government federal model we have now.

For more detail as to why Professor Balkin is so scandalized by the thought of reducing the size of the federal government and preventing it from defining and regulating families, see his blog post here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/07/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-department.html
 

If two-thirds of the states would pass Defense of Marriage Acts, would it not be a "defacto " Constitutional Admendment? 

If the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional , thereby making an "informal"

admendment, what would happen if the states refused to honor the courts decision?

Dee05 

Anonymous said :

If two-thirds of the states would pass Defense of Marriage Acts, would it not be a "defacto " Constitutional Admendment?

No. State nor local laws neither substitute nor supercede the constitution, as agreed by the SCOTUS in the recent Chicago handgun ban overturn.

Three-fourths of the states MUST ratify a constitutional amendment.