Shocking: Federal Judge has apparently read 10th amendment!

In a dramatic turn of events, a US federal judge out of Boston made a decision that overturns decades of jurisprudence in America. Bucking the precedent set by countless judges before him, this renegade, one Joseph Tauro, reached way back into the dusty annals of American law to pull out an almost unheard of clause. This clause, known as the 10^th amendment to the US Constitution, has been held as outmoded and outdated by nearly every lawmaker in recent history. Strangely enough this judge, despite the best effort of every law professor in the nation, somehow was accidentally exposed to the Constitution at some point in his career

Specifically, the court heard two linked cases by gay couples out of Massachusetts. They challenged the DOMA act (Defense of Marriage Act), a federal law which denied federal programs such as Medicaid to same-sex couples. The couples argued that the law forced states to discriminate against couples who were legally married in their state, and that the recognition of marriage is a state, not a federal, issue. In another case Judge Tauro also cited the equal protection clause, stating that the DOMA violated this right for couples who were legally married according to their own states’ definition.

As much as I love any time when the right of the state over the federal government is upheld, I must point out that the argument here is a bit shakier in my opinion. The act only withholds federal funding, and does not confer or deny any recognition of marriage to any state. The Justice Department argued that since the federal government is the one spending the money, it seems reasonable that they ought to be allowed to determine eligibility requirements, including denying same-sex partners.

Still, at the end of the day, I believe I prefer Judge Tauro’s definition. The feds have every right to say that the money ought not go to unmarried couples, but who exactly is married is the domain of the state. I anxiously look forward to hearing the comments from a few of my readers who are law students.