W. James Antle, III writes on The American Spectator‘s blog that the federal judge in Massachusetts was wrong in ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Tenth Amendment:

While it is always nice to see a federal judge dusting off the Tenth Amendment, the ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates states’ rights is fairly ridiculous. DOMA is not a “federal ban on gay marriage.” It did not prevent Massachusetts from recognizing same-sex marriage. It would not prevent all 50 states from doing so if they chose. What it does is prevent Massachusetts from using the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution to impose same-sex marriage on unwilling states and the federal government.

In fact, nothing in the DOMA blocked states from legalizing gay marriage. Several states have moved to redefine marriage, none of them stopped by the federal law. The purpose of DOMA was, in fact, to prevent one state forcing another to take the same stance. Antle finishes:

If you want to argue that this somehow violates the equal protection clause, fine, but the Tenth Amendment did not give Massachusetts the right to override the rest of the country on the issue of how marriage will be defined for public purposes.

Here’s the ultimate question: Is there a sudden new respect for the Tenth Amendment? Certainly that aspect of the Constitution hasn’t lead courts to strike down government’s ever-expanding power in the past.

We’re now being told which lightbulbs we can purchase, and no one can argue honestly that the federal government was intended to have that power. More recently, Congress has passed legislation mandating certain insurance policies. Will that individual mandate be overturned on the same basis?

I thoroughly doubt it. Something tells me this new respect for the Tenth Amendment is temporary and fleeting, only to be used — poorly — in convenient cases.