Grasping At Photocopied Pictures of Straws

So after Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional in a federal Massachusetts court yesterday on 10th Amendment grounds, lefty bloggers rejoiced in the schadenfreude of a 'states rights' argument being used against a conservative position.

In turn, some conservatives are now desperately trying to find a silver lining:

The modern state depends heavily on the federal government’s taxing and spending powers for many of the benefits that citizens hold dear, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the newly passed provisions of the Affordable Care Act. These programs have regulatory effects on state family policies just as much as DOMA does. If DOMA’s direct interference with state prerogatives is beyond federal power, then perhaps any or all of these programs are vulnerable– and unconstitutional– to the extent they interfere with state policies regarding family formation as well.

Yeah yeah yeah, IAMAL, but seriously... that's the best you can do? Try to argue that because certain government programs give incentives or disincentives to different family sizes and formations, they are the legal equivalent of DOMA's blatantly discriminatory ban on same-sex marriages?

Let's keep pushing that logic, shall we? The tax code gives incentives to be incorporated, and the definition of personhood is not a power specifically given to the feds. Bye bye, Dartmouth v Woodward! So long, Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad! Corporate personhood is toast.

Hey, this wishful lawyering stuff is easy.

No comments:

Post a Comment