Commentators on the Defense of Marriage (DOM) Act decision by the Supreme Court are missing the real importance of the decision.
The Supreme Court ruled the DOM Act unconstitutional because it just wasn’t “nice” to deny married same sex couples federal benefits, not because of what the Constitution says.
I always viewed the Supreme Court as incorruptible, the last resort for justice against an over-reaching government. That it would enforce the law as defined in the Constitution.
You must be a member to read this story.
Join our family of readers starting at $5 for your first month and support local, unbiased journalism.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
Register to comment
Click here create a free account for posting comments.
Note that free accounts do not include access to premium content on this site.
I am anchor
DOM Act
Posted
Doug Larson
Commentators on the Defense of Marriage (DOM) Act decision by the Supreme Court are missing the real importance of the decision.
The Supreme Court ruled the DOM Act unconstitutional because it just wasn’t “nice” to deny married same sex couples federal benefits, not because of what the Constitution says.
I always viewed the Supreme Court as incorruptible, the last resort for justice against an over-reaching government. That it would enforce the law as defined in the Constitution.
What I was anticipating they would rule is that the Constitution does not give the Congress the right to regulate marriage, therefor it is the states’ right to determine who is married, and if the state says the couple is married, the federal government has to give them the federal benefits due any married couple.
One of the reasons we are a great country is that we have followed the rule of law. Now the Executive Branch lies, the Legislative Branch votes for laws they haven’t read, which are full of back room deals, and the Supreme Court just ruled based on its “feelings.”
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here