States Rights, the Demise of DOMA, and Topsy-Turvey arguments both Left and Right

Here's a little piece that I fired off yesterday.  It's already been bounced by CanadaFreePress.com, but they were nice enough to send me a rejection email so I wasn't left hanging.  CFP (which I highly recommend, btw; they're a fun site that's published my rants in the past) said that I got bounced because of the high volume of articles and the speed of posting of same...which is legit, 'cause I was a bit slow at getting this out (I had other things to do yesterday before I got around to this).  I thought about sending it to a few other places, but then decided nah, why bother?  After all, why have a blog if you're not going to use it, right?

At any rate, here's my little rant about the US v Windsor decision.  It's not so much about gay marriage per se as it is about the flip-flop in the usual stances of the Left and Right vis a vis Federal power.  I really haven't seen this angle talked about yet, and hope to get some good (non-idiot) feedback about it...and by that, I mean fulsome, gushing praise for my brilliant analysis, sparkling wit, and pithy comments.

Here it is, in all it's windbaggy glory:

State’s Rights and the Demise of DOMA

The Supremes have spoken, and now (if the fire and brimstone merchants are to be believed) it’s only a matter of days before we have men marrying goats, women marrying other women (who look like men), and the nation is consumed by the wrath of Almighty God in such a way as will make the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah look like a covered dish supper.

Having seen the social approbation and censure that was brought down on the occasional poor soul dumb enough to bring a sack of Krystals to a covered dish supper, I think Sodom and Gomorrah got off easy.  But then again, I was born and raised Southern Baptist, and the TaliBaptists don’t play about their church feedings.

Personally, I’m not terribly worried about any of the abovementioned horrors.  I suspect that either the social order or the currency will collapse before God gets around to noticing that a small percentage of our citizens are able to marry the person they love.  No, it won’t be homosexuals in wedding dresses or tuxes (for some reason, lesbians don’t generally go for the wedding dress thing, go figure) and saying “I do” that does the republic in.  It’s much more likely that the government’s profligate spending, the overarching regulations of the nanny state, or the creation of a permanent dependency class over the last few decades—or all of these together—will bring the country crashing down around our ears before too long.

That being said, I will admit to a certain enjoyment of the sturm und drang the opinion in United States v. Windsor has created on both sides of the issue.  While the social conservatives have been bemoaning the demise of “traditional” marriage, the social progressives have been trumpeting the triumph of equality with a “gee, ain’t this great?” smugness that is more than a bit annoying.

It has been amusing these last few months to ask the social conservatives if, in lieu of 50 silver shekels, I can give them pre-1963 dimes when I rape/marry their virgin daughters, in accordance with Deuteronomy 22:28-29.  Yes, I realize that I won’t be able to divorce the girl afterwards—unlike many supporters of DOMA, who are on Wifey-Poo #2 or #3—but hey!  It’s ‘biblical’!  Somehow, they haven’t really appreciated my scriptural acumen, nor my honest question about the whole shekel/silver dime conversion thing.  But, I digress….

What neither side seems to realize is just how the Windsor ruling turned the usual Left-Right polarity on its head, and the obtuseness about of this flip-flop is what I find so amusing.

To justify overturning DOMA, the majority opinion stated “DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”  While I agree with the Court that the Defense of Marriage Act was constitutionally indefensible, I find the use of the Fifth Amendment in this case to be a bit thin.  To me, the applicable bits of the Constitution are the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.  Nowhere in the Constitution is ‘marriage’ mentioned as an enumerated power of the Federal government, and to deny the more than 1000 Federal benefits of marriage to a subset of the population based solely on gender clearly violates the ‘equal protection of the law’ clause of the Fourteenth.

Be that as it may, the truly interesting thing to note about the actual decision (rather than what the various talking heads and televangelists have said about it) is that the core of the majority’s argument is good, old-fashioned States Rights!  Time after time in the opinion, the sovereign power of the State is invoked against the Federal DOMA.  Since DOMA stepped on the toes of New York State, so the majority reasoned, it had to go!

Think about that, and the opposing arguments of the DOMA supporters, for just a minute.  Because they were determined to throw down DOMA, the liberal Justices were forced to take what is (for them) a highly unusual stance:  namely, that DOMA represents an overreach by the Federal government into an area that is exclusively the province of the several sovereign States.  The Justices obviously realize this, and do what they can to deny the logical implications of this stance with statements such as “it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution,” and that “[t]he State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism”, as Justice Scalia aptly points out in his dissent.  This is crap, and they know it.  Either a State is sovereign and the Tenth Amendment holds, or not.  A more clear case of “either/or” would be hard to imagine…but the liberal majority in this opinion would want us to do just that.

The same discordant reasoning is heard from the supporters of DOMA.  It’s interesting how the very same people who insist the Federal government is too big, has too long an arm, and needs to stay out of their business nonetheless scream for Leviathan to intercede to enforce their own personal beliefs in all fifty States.  Even worse, there seems to be a greater degree of blindness about the inconsistency and illogic of these positions on the side of the alleged conservatives than on the part of the progressives.

Let’s be brutally honest here:  the underlying reason that social conservatives wanted DOMA is because of their religious beliefs.  Everything else is window dressing, jazz hands and glitter glue to distract from that simple fact.  The truly conservative, Constitutional position is that this is a matter for the several States to decide.  DOMA assumed a power NOT given to the Federal government in the Constitution, and did so in direct violation of the First Amendment, by making what is, at its core, a religious decree.  To counter this, the liberal majority of the Court was forced to do what is generally anathema to them, and take the position that there are some places where the Federal government may not go.

And that, in a nutshell, is what I find so funny.  To get what they wanted, both sides had to take up positions which they typically rail against, and thus show themselves to be the great flaming hypocrites they truly are.  The liberals have now been forced to admit there are limits to what the Imperial Federal Apparatus can do, and the social conservatives are butt-hurt that the Court wouldn’t give them the theocracy they so desperately crave deep down in their black little hearts.  Neither side will admit this, of course; which is why I intend to point it out to all and sundry as often as I possibly can over the coming days.  This article is just my opening salvo, and I expect to be tipping sacred cows left and right until the fun wears off…which it never will.

Feel free to join the fun with me!  Oh, and the whole ‘men marrying goats’ thing?  As all we good little libertarians know, this is impossible because a goat is not a sentient being, and thus unable to enter into a legally binding contractual arrangement such as marriage.  To suggest otherwise is a specious argument (more jazz hands & glitter glue), or can be taken as prima facia evidence of the unspoken desires of the person making the statement…and I say that as an old retired shrink with some degree of expertise in that kind of thing.

Feel free to point that out, too.  The goat fornicators need to be called on it, ‘cause that’s just nasty…not to mention, cruel to the goat.