Federal Judge Defends States’ Rights?

So, I opened up the Dallas Morning News today (usually a mistake, unless you’re looking for something stupid to blog about), and almost fell out of my seat. A federal judge has overturned a federal law on the basis that it violates states’ rights.

Yeah, “violates states’ right!” I could hardly believe it! After 145 years of centralized rule, a federal judge has seen some value in decentralization?

Here’s the quote:

[B]ecause it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits… US District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples’ rights in two challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Yeah, should’ve guessed, right? Issues like gun control, abortion, immigration, education, commerce, and everything else under the sun rightfully belongs to the federal government and the states exist just to serve as administrative districts, except when it’s D.C. and not the state picking on the latest victim-group. I’d wager that had the situation been reversed, with Massachusetts passing a “Defense of Marriage Act” and D.C. recognizing gay “marriage,” the judge would’ve ruled in D.C.’s favor. Political expediency, baby – who cares about the rule of law when there’s an agenda to push?

It reminds me of how so many “conservatives” supported the Bush Administration’s expansion of executive power when that power was being used for projects they liked; now that someone with a different agenda holds that power, it doesn’t seem so hot. Of course, the inverse is also true: Democrats often spoke against Bush’s disregard for the rule of law, but now that their guy is in power, they remain silent.