Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Clarence Thomas vs. the Defense of Marriage Act

Damon Root | 3.4.2013 3:23 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Windsor, the case arising from the legal challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions that are lawful under state law. Last Friday, a group of legal scholars whose work focuses on federalism submitted a friend of the court brief in the case, urging the justices to invalidate Section 3 because it is not a valid exercise of federal power and therefore violates the Constitution. On Twitter, reporter Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post noted the brief and asked, "could it pick up Thomas?"

It might. Among the scholars who signed on to the brief is Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, one of the legal architects behind last year's Obamacare challenge and also the losing lead attorney in the 2005 medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich. Justice Clarence Thomas accepted Barnett's theories on the limits to federal power in both those cases and has also cited Barnett's work in other opinions.

But just as important, Thomas has a tendency to break with the Supreme Court's conservative bloc when federalism principles are at stake in a case that is otherwise seen to advance a liberal political agenda—which is basically the Defense of Marriage Act controversy in a nutshell.

In 2009, for instance, Thomas concurred in the Court's 6-3 ruling in Wyeth v. Levine, which said that federal law did not trump a state lawsuit filed against a pharmaceutical corporation, even though the drug-warning label that was at the center of the lawsuit had been approved by the Federal Drug Administration. (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito voted in dissent.) Thomas reached a similar conclusion in another regulatory federalism case, Williamson v. Mazda Motors of America, where the Court held that federal law did not trump a more restrictive state law regulating seat belts. Thomas' concurrence in Williamson even earned him some kudos from the left-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center, who called Thomas a "surprising ally for progressives" in the case.

Since Thomas is unlikely to ask any questions during the March 27 oral argument over the Defense of Marriage Act, we won't know his views for certain until late June, when a decision is expected in the case.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Surge in Americans Taking U.K. Citizenship Over Taxes

Damon Root is a senior editor at Reason and the author of A Glorious Liberty: Frederick Douglass and the Fight for an Antislavery Constitution (Potomac Books).

PoliticsEconomicsPolicySupreme CourtGay MarriageFederalismRegulationConstitution
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (76)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. John   12 years ago

    So federalism is really really important when talking about the defense of marriage act but not so important when talking about California not recognizing gay marriages. It is almost as if Reason's positions are results driven or something.

    1. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

      On Volokh.com, one of the signatories on the Section 3 brief, Jonathan Adler, said (in the comment thread): "Although I support gay marriage, I do not believe Prop. 8 or state laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman are unconstitutional."

      He adds that "I was not approached about signing a Prop. 8 brief" and that he "would have joined a pure federalism brief in the [Prop 8] case if I'd had the opportunity (and if the brief truly stuck to the federalism issues, and did not smuggle in anti-same-sex marriage arguments)."

      I'm curious how many of those who are concern-trolling about federalism and Section 3 of DOMA would have the courage of Prof. Adler and defend the authority of California, under federalist 10th Amendment principles, to enact Prop 8.

      1. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

        see

        http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/.....qus_thread

      2. John   12 years ago

        I cannot for the life of me see how you can say that Section 3 of DOMA is wrong but then also say that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

        1. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

          So, you're invoking technicalities to deny gay people their Fundamental Human Rights (TM)? You must be a fascist. A gay fascist.

          /sarc

        2. Doctor Whom   12 years ago

          The 10th Amendment limits federal power. The equal-protection clause of ? 1 of the 14th Amendment limits state power. Here's the text of the 10th Amendment (emphasis added):

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          If a power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution and is prohibited by it to the States, then neither the United States nor the States have that power.

          1. John   12 years ago

            So states don't have the power to define marriage? That will come as a hell of a surprise to every family law judge out there.

            1. darius404   12 years ago

              As per the 14th Amendment they can't discriminate on the basis of sex, so no they don't have the power to define marriage as between two people of the opposite sex any more than they could define it as two people of the same race.

          2. Thane of Whiterun   12 years ago

            If a power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution and is [not] prohibited by it to the States, then neither the United States nor the States have that power.

    2. Proprietist   12 years ago

      First of all, speculating on Thomas's motivations for a possible ruling is not exactly arguing one way or another.

      Secondly, federalism is not a good in and of itself. States are obligated by the 14th Amendment to equally protect the privileges and immunities of their citizens. If states fail to do so, I have no problem with the federal government intervening, especially in the case of marriage, which applies to federal issues like immigration law. For that reason, perhaps marriage should be filed at the federal level.

      Federalism is great whenever the federal government is preventing states from expanding individual liberty, not great when the states are violating individual rights and failing to provide equal protections.

      1. Proprietist   12 years ago

        To clarify, I don't think marriage should be "filed" with government at all, but we still need to figure out how to accomodate the immigration question regardless.

        1. John   12 years ago

          Immigration is up to the feds. There is nothing to say states can't have different policies for marriage. In some states it is legal to marry you cousin. Some states it is not. That hasn't been a problem in immigration law. Why would gay marriage be any different?

          1. jesse.in.mb   12 years ago

            If I wanted to to marry my international cousin I could go to CA and do that and the Feds, who have no explicit position on first-cousin marriage would accept that as a legal marriage. DOMA explicitly states that gay marriages that are legal in the state they are enacted are not seen as valid by the Federal government, and therefore doesn't count for the purposes of immigration.

            1. John   12 years ago

              So what? If the feds decided that marrying your cousin was against policy, it would choose not to recognize your marriage. It can do that. That doesn't make it the right decision. But just because it is wrong doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.

              1. Calidissident   12 years ago

                John, I'm curious as to where you find the federal power to ignore marriages that are legal at the state-level? I do agree that states prohibiting gay marriage is not unconstitutional, though I disagree with it, but I also think the Feds can't pick and choose which state-legal marriages to recognize

            2. Way Of The Crane   12 years ago

              Ironically one of the arguments against gay marriage used by Paul Clement in the DOMA case is,"Because same-sex relationships cannot naturally produce offspring, they do not implicate the State's interest in responsible procreation and childrearing in the same way that opposite-sex relationships do."

              This is the exact opposite of the argument used to make an exception for the marriage between first cousins in some states. Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Utah, and Wisconsin all allow first cousins to get married if both husband and wife are over the age of 65 or one of them is proven to be sterile.

          2. Proprietist   12 years ago

            Thanks for defeating your own argument for me. Throughout the Middle East, first cousins have been getting married forever. We don't prevent the spouse from immigrating simply because they are cousins, even though there are some states where it is illegal for first cousins to be married.

            But in Belgium, it is legal for gays to marry, yet the federal government DOES block the spouse from immigrating, despite the fact that their marriage is legal in some states.

            1. John   12 years ago

              So what. You don't like immigration policy. Join the club. But all you are telling me is that we have bad policy. But since when is bad policy synonymous with "unconstitutional"?

              1. Proprietist   12 years ago

                Since they passed the 14th Amendment.

                1. John   12 years ago

                  You mean that was passed when homosexuality was illegal in every state. That amendment? That amendent that you now claim gives gays the right to marry?

                  Why do you think it says that when no one who wrote it or interpreted it for 150 years thought it means that beyond "fuck you I want it this way"

                  You want gay marriage proprietist, great. Get the states to make it so. But please refrain from raping the Constitution to get your way.

                  1. Proprietist   12 years ago

                    So, the First Amendment does not apply to speech on television because they did not have televisions back in 1776? Slaves were not afforded freedoms of speech back in 1776. The second amendment does not apply to machine guns because they didn't exist in 1776?

                  2. Proprietist   12 years ago

                    And really John? Expanding individual liberties, freedom of contract and equal protections via the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is "raping the Constititution"? Such hyperbole from a statist such as yourself.

              2. Calidissident   12 years ago

                John, how are those laws constitutional? The burdens on you to prove it. And I'm not even talking about the gay aspect of it. "Immigration" is not synonymous with "naturalization" as much as you want it to be

              3. Calidissident   12 years ago

                John, how are those laws constitutional? The burdens on you to prove it. And I'm not even talking about the gay aspect of it. "Immigration" is not synonymous with "naturalization" as much as you want it to be

                1. DJK   12 years ago

                  The burden is now on the group trying to prove constitutionality? I'm pretty sure that a significant amount of case law says otherwise. If you haven't noticed, SCOTUS believes in extreme deference to Congress...

                  1. Calidissident   12 years ago

                    DJK, I'm obviously speaking about what should be/how it was supposed to be. I don't give a shit about case law. The Supreme Court's deference has allowed the feds to get away with the 95+% of their current actions that are unconstitutional

            2. Way Of The Crane   12 years ago

              Married cousins may be allowed to immigrate into the country, that does not mean that every state in this country recognizes their marriage. Out of state marriages between first cousins are considered void in Arizona.

          3. Juice   12 years ago

            Immigration is up to the feds.

            Show me where in the constitution the federal government is charged with the duty of enforcing immigration policy.

            By the way naturalization is not immigration.

      2. John   12 years ago

        Federalism is great whenever the federal government is preventing states from expanding individual liberty, not great when the states are violating individual rights and failing to provide equal protections.

        Which is just another way of saying it is great as long as you get your way or fuck you that is why.

        And gays having the government recognize their marriage is a "right" why? No one even thought of it until the 1980s. If gay marriage becomes a right that courts force states to accept rather the a policy decision legislatures make, we can further kiss the Constitution goodbye. If a bunch of judges and elites can dream up the right to gay marriage in the equal protection clause, they can dream up any other right the progs have been dreaming of. And don't give me the spiel about gay marriage not being a positive right.

        First, since people like employers and such have to recognize all government sanctioned marriages, I think it is a positive. Second, even if it is not, future courts won't care and look at this as precedent for inserting whatever the top men think ought to be in the document.

        1. sarcasmic   12 years ago

          Which is just another way of saying it is great as long as you get your way or fuck you that is why.

          Funny how some "libertarians" take on the attitude of progressive liberals on certain subjects, isn't it?

          1. Proprietist   12 years ago

            Funny how some "libertarians" take on the attitude of segregationists and are cool with violations of individual rights as long as they are done at the state level, isn't it?

            1. darius404   12 years ago

              It's more accurately a violation of equal protection under the law. I'm not sure, does that count as an individual right, or is it more an aspect of governmental structure?

              1. Proprietist   12 years ago

                In the case of gay marriage, yeah. I mean, I think equal protections is an individual right as well. But I was criticizing the concept of federalism as a good in and of itself in other areas where federalists believe "states' rights" trump individual rights, equal protections, etc.

        2. Proprietist   12 years ago

          Really? I shouldn't be surprised. I'm a LIBERTARIAN and not a federalist. The two are not intrisically intertwined and often contradictory. I will prefer whichever level of government is willing to expand individual rights more. States are not always that level.

          1. John   12 years ago

            So you think it is okay for courts to pull "rights" out of their asses because they like it that way? Good luck with that.

            1. Proprietist   12 years ago

              I support a very broad reading of the Ninth Amendment, and incorporate that reading back to the states via the Fourteenth. I also believe that the discretion granted by the Tenth Amendment mostly falls "to the People."

              1. John   12 years ago

                I also believe that the discretion granted by the Tenth Amendment mostly falls "to the People."

                No you don't. You only think that when the people do what you like. The people of California decided they don't want government recognized gay marriage. And you are telling them to go fuck themselves they no longer get to decide what marriage is, you and people like you do.

                1. Proprietist   12 years ago

                  The people of California Alabama decided they don't want government recognized gay marriage independence and equal protection for blacks. And you are telling them to go fuck themselves they no longer get to decide what marriage labor is, you and people like you do.

                  1. John   12 years ago

                    Gee Proprietsist the fact that the 14th Amendment was PASSED to address that very problem is pretty strong evidence that equal protection means the government can't discriminate based on race.

                    Wow, we should look at the history of the amendment and what it means rather than just pulling what we hope it means out of our ass. What a concept.

                    That is a sorry effort there son. I expected better.

                    1. Proprietist   12 years ago

                      Oh, so the 14th Amendment only applies towards slavery, and not anything else?

                    2. DJK   12 years ago

                      The legislative history of the 14th Amendment makes it pretty clear that race was not the only thing on the drafters' minds...

            2. Zeb   12 years ago

              "So you think it is okay for courts to pull "rights" out of their asses because they like it that way? "

              Well, that's what they already do, so might as well celebrate it when it's actually a win for freedom and equality under the law.

              1. John   12 years ago

                Sure Zeb. But don't piss down my leg and tell me its raining. Just admit that Libertarians don't give a shit about the Constitution anymore than the Liberals do. And I will duly note that admission the next time Libertarians are whining about the war power and such.

                1. Zeb   12 years ago

                  I can only speak for myself, not libertarians in general. I'm kind of torn on the issue. I think that if the Constitution were followed to the letter, it would be a pretty decent system of government. But as it is not (and as no one can agree on what exactly that would mean), I have to be a little happy when courts stretch it in a direction that I like. They have sure done it enough in the other direction.

                  The Constitution is a tool. I think it is a pretty good one. But if it stops doing what you want it to do, then you have to consider trying something else.

                2. Juice   12 years ago

                  But don't piss down my leg and tell me its raining. Just admit that Libertarians don't give a shit about the Constitution anymore than the Liberals do.

                  I know I don't. (Unless it helps freedom.)

          2. John   12 years ago

            I'm a LIBERTARIAN and not a believer in the rule of law.

            Fixed it for you.

            1. Proprietist   12 years ago

              I don't believe in the rule of law when the laws are arbitrary, corrupt and violate individual rights.

              1. John   12 years ago

                You don't believe in laws that you don't like. Well isn't that special.

                1. Proprietist   12 years ago

                  Channeling your inner Tony today, are we, John? Shouldn't surprise me, but he makes the same exact argument all the time.

              2. Proprietist   12 years ago

                And equal legal protection by the courts and the federal bureaucracies IS an individual right. The government is not permitted to discriminate on the basis of sex (which is why male-only selective service is also unconstitutional.) Anti-gay marriage laws are discrimination on the basis of sex, is it not?

                1. John   12 years ago

                  Not anymore than preventing polyamy or any of the other things states have done since the founding of the country is.

                  No one intended the 14th Amendment to cover gay marriage. You are only claiming it does because you have decided you like it that way. And that is great right up until someone claims welfare or the right not to be offended is there too. And you and the rest of the Libertarians who are buying this bullshit will not have a single bit of moral credibility to oppose them.

                  1. Proprietist   12 years ago

                    Now you're just being disingenous, Red Tony. I should expect it, it's just that you sometimes come across as so reasonable I forget how you truly can be at times.

                  2. Zeb   12 years ago

                    No one intended the 14th Amendment to cover gay marriage

                    Sometimes constitutional amendments can have unintended consequences.

                2. Way Of The Crane   12 years ago

                  Anti-gay marriage laws are discrimination on the basis of sex, is it not?

                  Gay women have the same level of rights as gay men when it comes to getting married. That is, both gay women and gay men are free to marry members of the opposite sex.

                  This is why the sexual discrimination argument doesn't work from a legal standpoint. It is also why conservatives fear the slippery slope of "redefining marriage." if you can marry anyone you want, then what's to stop you from marrying multiple people, animals, etc.

                  I think the real problem is that the government is involved in the matter of marriage in the first place.

                  1. Proprietist   12 years ago

                    We agree that government shouldn't be involved, but that doesn't mean a state-privileged contract between a man and woman that requires consummation and shared residency for spousal immigration is not arbitrarily discriminatory against those who do not want to consummate or live with the opposite gender.

                  2. DJK   12 years ago

                    Nope. Doesn't work this way. Imagine a man and a woman who are exactly equal in every condition except for their sex. The woman has a right to marry a man and receive federal benefits for it. The man doesn't. Government benefits based on sex. Sex discrimination.

            2. Death Rock and Skull   12 years ago

              As long as wherever the fuck I chose to reside is as libertarian as possible, I do not give a fuck how it comes about. I am also totally in support of imposing libertarianism on places where other people live. Fuck statists.

              1. John   12 years ago

                Well death, if you plan to put your boot on their neck, you can't really bitch when they do the same to you.

                1. Proprietist   12 years ago

                  Nobody is "planning to put our boot on their neck". We are telling them to get their boots off someone else's neck.

              2. John   12 years ago

                And since when is the right to get government permission to live together being a "nonstatist"?

                1. Proprietist   12 years ago

                  I heartily support illegal immigration for gay married couples until they correct federal immigration law.

                  1. Death Rock and Skull   12 years ago

                    Someone is going to have to put a boot on someone's neck eventually around here.

                    1. darius404   12 years ago

                      Yes John, saying some state definitions of marriage are illegitimate is "putting a boot on their neck". Geez.

    3. Zeb   12 years ago

      Has Reason stated a position that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional? If so, I've missed it.

  2. sarcasmic   12 years ago

    I wonder if the same reasoning will apply regarding the conflict between federal and state marijuana laws.

    1. Juice   12 years ago

      Too late.

  3. Anonymous Coward   12 years ago

    Yay! An abortion topic, a hemp topic, and a gay marriage topic! Must have been a kick-ass cocktail party this weekend!

    1. Eduard van Haalen   12 years ago

      There's free hemp at the gay wedding reception at the Woman's Health Center!

    2. Zeb   12 years ago

      Is hemp in any way controversial here?

      1. Way Of The Crane   12 years ago

        only when used in late term abortions

  4. Death Rock and Skull   12 years ago

    All of them will completely disregard any constitutional argument in favor of making the most vague determination possible that allows the government to do almost whatever the fuck it wants to do.

    1. Proprietist   12 years ago

      John, Tony and their ilk love the negative 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall be construed, on the basis of current popular opinion and in however invasive fashion deemed necessary to protect the rule of arbitrary law, to deny or disparage others claimed by the people."

      1. John   12 years ago

        So says the guy who thinks it recognizes a 'right' that is nothing but fashionable thinking. Projection is so strong.

        1. Proprietist   12 years ago

          That's what they once said about miscegenation too, I'm sure.

  5. ZinxMinx   12 years ago

    Sometimes man, you jsut have to roll with it. Wow.

    http://www.AnonProx.da.bz

  6. I GOT HUNG UP SILLY   12 years ago

    Religious Americans obviously now need to have the same type of keen legal minds who defended the Amish Community from the outside USA community.

    Who is protecting future rights of various straight Religious American families who will be forced into future USA Family Courts across the USA with the Same SEx MarriageGay Judges deciding straight family values ?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Maryland's New 3 Percent Tax Will Chill the State's Emerging Tech Sector

Tosin Akintola | 7.6.2025 6:30 AM

Conflicts and Contrasts Make Jerusalem Endlessly Fascinating

Jacob Sullum | From the August/September 2025 issue

In Defense of the Tourist Trap: Why Following the Crowd Might Be the Smartest Way To Travel

Christian Britschgi | From the August/September 2025 issue

69 Percent of Americans Say American Dream Is Not Dead

Autumn Billings | 7.4.2025 8:30 AM

With Environmental Regulatory Reform, California Gov. Gavin Newsom Finally Does Something Substantial

Steven Greenhut | 7.4.2025 7:30 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!