Did you hear? The new hot-butt(on) topic of humor this week is the Iowa County Judge who decided to overturn State Law banning gay marriage.

Sorry for the bit of washroom blow dryer humor there. Get it? "Press Butt(on)," but the 'on' is scratched out? Check out the hand blow dryer in any restroom. Maybe that's what Senator Craig was doing??

Anyways, a little bit of trivia, and if anyone is familiar with Iowa State Law and can inform us, please chime in. But my take on the Judiciary is that a lower level of the Judiciary is not able to overturn a higher level of Statutory Law, nor Judicial Precedent, for that matter.

This is an issue that warrants further discussion later, but for now, allow us to stick to my topic of choice, the Presidential candidates and their remarks on the topic.

Ironically, despite my earlier bashing of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) on other States' Rights matters, the junior Senator from New York is the most clearly correct person on this topic, stating she favors civil unions "with full equality of benefits." But she said the question of same-sex marriage should be left up to the states. (AP)

Here, here--except for the civil unions part. Sorry, social conservative!

While Sen. Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, nearly identical in their views on the topic, will differ from me in their support for civil unions, we are spot-on on the same page as far as States' Rights are concerned.

At least on this issue!

Now, I've made long-winded mention of Sen. Obama's and Sen. Clinton's Socialistic tendencies on the topic of income re-distribution, and their stances on taxpayer-funded, Socialized Healthcare Insurance is legendary. Not to mention other historical Democratic stalwart Socialistic issues that have performed so flawlessly as Socialized Housing, Socialized Welfare, et al. And we will discuss Social Security at length, I am sure.

But I must give credit when credit is due, and Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are on the right side, forgive that intended pun which would offend many on both sides of the political aisle! Now if only we could hear Republicans speaking out on the correct side of the Constitution.

That's right, I am calling out and calling on Republicans to take on the correct side of this issue. To say that a national Statute or Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage is grossly inappropriate and, actually, unconstitutional itself.

Again, the 10th Amendment. "The powers not (I'll have this memorized one of these days!) delegated to the United States (meaning the Federal Government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively (meaning each for itself), or to the people."

Now, that last little phrase is one that I would expect to hear Liberals, Socialists, and Democrats bring up instead of some of the rhetoric that we hear them extol: "Or to the people."

Enter Sen. Clinton again, on the Ellen DeGeneres show, ironically. (Is she even still on the air?) "The states have always determined age of marriage, other conditions and over time we've gotten rid a lot of discrimination that used to exist in marriage laws," she said. "That's now happening. People are making decisions. Civil unions, marriage. They're deciding in the states and I think that's the appropriate place for that to be."

Well-stated. Again, except for the civil union stuff. But I fully support the rights of each State to decide for itself if it wants gay marriage banned, civil unions recognized, etc.

My state, for example, even went so far in 2004 as to state that gay marriages recognized elsewhere would not be recognized in Texas.

Fantastic! That is our right.

Now, what about "or to the people," you ask? Sen. Clinton? "The States have always determined age of marriage," etc. Key in on the word 'States.'

Sen. Clinton's remarks could easily have been in regards to murder and the death penalty, vehicular or corporate or banking laws, or a whole slew of other topics, and this general theme would be correct, because the Constitution says so!!

Trump card laid down. End of discussion.

Now, the same Associated Press article that I am quoting also went on to discuss States' Rights inconsistencies, at least on the Republican side of things.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney "is willing to generally leave it to states to decide how to set up health care coverage plans, he said it shouldn't be left to states to decide same-sex marriage issues."

Interestingly enough, writer Amy Lorentzen either didn't think to turn the question around on the Democrats, or she was relying on quotes to questions others asked since she wasn't actually present in 8 places at one time. And apparently, nobody was asking Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama why they felt it was the Federal Government's business to delve into Socialized Healthcare Insurance but not gay marriage.

I guess that these candidates, Republican and Democrat alike, feel it is their prerogative to pick and choose which topics the 10th Amendment does and does not apply to.

When last I checked, the 10th Amendment mentions the Constitution. And it mentions the States. And, logically, when a State does not choose to Legislate an item, it, by default, automatically falls to the individual, also according to the 10th Amendment.

But nowhere in the 10th Amendment is there mention of the President, and therefore, candidates for the Presidency, having either the power or the responsibility for any of the issues listed herein.

In review, for Republicans that means no Federal oversight (including Judicial!) in gay marriage. For Democrats, the list is long and distinguished, but for matters pertaining to this blog, they include Socialized Healthcare Insurance, just about any other Federal Social program, including individual retirement accounts, also known as Social Security, and the Federal Judiciary's whippin' post issue of abortion, which once was, and always should have been, a States' Rights issue.

Wouldn't you like to see Amy Lorentzen asking that question of candidates?

Leave it to the States. Do you guys start to see why this is such a big issue for both Parties??