Here's one of those "Who's on first?" situations. A judge has struck down a federal statute on grounds that it violates states' rights, and conservatives who normally complain about federal power are outraged, and liberals who usually love federal power are celebrating. Perfectly understandable considering the nature of the law in question:
The Obama administration is "reviewing the decision" that a Massachusetts judge made on Thursday declaring a federal ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on the grounds it violates states' rights.
Experts say U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro's ruling could have far reaching effects if upheld.
[. . .]
While same-sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, Tauro argued the Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) discriminated against gay married couples by excluding them from benefits available to heterosexual married couples.
"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro said. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."
The 10 Amendment has been ignored, vilified, marginalized, made moot by successive Supreme Courts and generally beaten to death with a stick, so it's nice someone finally cares that it is "offended," though it's sort of in the "too little, too late" category. But, whatever you think of the gay marriage issue, this is at least a glancing blow for federalism.
"Far reaching effects if upheld" -- no kidding. We have a federal government that ignores some things it should do, such as immigration enforcement (through multiple administrations), and feels perfectly free to roam into areas that are none of its damn business, such as health care. This ruling puts the current administration in a real bind. It likes the effect of the judge's decision, but it doesn't want to give up the power to determine, say, who gets Medicare benefits.
This ruling is going to do nothing but cause great confusion, consternation and doubt. Good.
