Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – To the Dude Maker Hotline, my friend and yours, Dr. Professor Kevin Gutzman, author of James Madison and the Making of America, author of Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, and co-author of Who Killed the Constitution? on the Dude Maker Hotline on a Monday. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: To the Dude Maker Hotline, my friend and yours, Dr. Professor Kevin Gutzman, author of James Madison and the Making of America, author of Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, and co-author of Who Killed the Constitution? on the Dude Maker Hotline on a Monday. Hello, Kevin, how are you this morning?
Kevin Gutzman: Hi, Mike, very well, how are you?
Mike: I am very well, thank you very much. Last week while I was out in Scotland, the Supreme Court ruled on Proposition 8 from California and partially ruled or struck down a provision of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. In Justice Kennedy’s latest tyranny, how far off the constitutional mark is the court on this one?
Gutzman: First of all, when it comes to Proposition 8, what happened there was just that the highest officials of the State of California decided not to appeal a negative decision of a court in California. The court said that private individuals didn’t have standing to appeal states that the AG and the government of California decided not to appeal. This is, of course, a technical issue. What it amounts to, if I leave a lawsuit and I decide not to appeal it, you can’t go appeal it on my behalf hoping that you’ll get a good precedent out of it. This really has nothing much to do with the definition of marriage. It has to do with the question of the responsibility of the government in California. Of course, Governor Brown and the most attractive attorney general in America, as President Obama nominated her, they are responsible for making this kind of decision. I don’t think that the court has any choice but to say that private individuals didn’t have standing to appeal there. That, to me, was not surprising at all.
On the other hand, on this question of DOMA, my understanding is that the courts invalidated one part of it, which was the part that defined marriage as between an individual man and woman for federal purposes, thereby invalidating for federal purposes homosexual marriages recognized by various states around the country. What this amounted to was the court saying that from now on, for federal purposes, it will be up to the states to define marriage within their own territory. In my mind, that was the correct decision. It seems to me that marriage is an area that is properly for the states to decide. If you don’t like the way that your State of Connecticut or State of Alabama or State of Idaho is defining marriage, the proper response is not to go to the federal government and say: For purposes of social security benefits, say that these marriages recognized by my state are invalid. The proper response is to go to your state legislature and have a different definition of marriage recognized there. I think, again, that was the correct decision. The court reached it on the basis of the Fifth Amendment equal protection notion, which was admitted by the court in 1954. Of course, that’s bogus. They should have said under the Tenth Amendment it’s for the states to define marriage…
For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!