When In Doubt, Butt Out

Here is a sensible piece by George Will on why the Court should strike down the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’.

In brief: the definition and regulation of marriage is not among the Federal government’s enumerated and carefully limited powers. Students of history will recall that this actually used to mean something.

2 Comments

  1. Matt says

    Section 3, the part that defines marriage is unconstitutional–it exists for the purpose of defining who gets federal benefits attached to the marriage status, but the federal government should leave that for the states to decide and just take their word for it.

    But another section, 1 I think, exempts marital status from the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution, such that states don’t have to recognize other states’ marriages. This part isn’t unconstitutional.

    Posted March 22, 2013 at 9:33 am | Permalink
  2. Malcolm says

    Well, unless it’s severable, the whole thing’s out.

    Posted March 22, 2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*