Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Apr 3, 2013.
by syndicated columnist Albert Hunt
Albert Hunt says on the link, "The 17-year-old federal Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and woman, and thus denying federal spousal benefits to gays and lesbians, almost certainly will be thrown out on the grounds that such decisions should be left to the states."
So now we have liberals (I presume that he is a liberal) saying that it is a state matter but they still want California's referendum overturned for any reason possible. Wouldn't federal tax law then be at the mercy of states?
But what I really don't understand is how it can be a state matter since in 1887, as you know, the federal government passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act outlawing polygamy. Now Utah became a state in 1886. So it would seem that people who lost money because of Edmunds-Tucker could sue because the law would be unconstitutional on the same grounds that DOMA would be ruled unconstitutional.
But the list of bad decisions from the US Supreme Court is very long. In Korematsu v United States, the Court ruled that the federal government had the right to put citizens of Japanese ancestry in prison camps because of World War II. Those people many decades later got a small amount of money from Congress presumably because the Court and FDR operated illegally.
If Edmunds Tucker is overthrown, there will be no way for any state to draw any line on this matter and we will be the laughingstock of the world, if we aren't already.