In general, I agree with it on both grounds. However, the court does not go far enough on the 10th Amend. issue. First, existing Supreme Court precedent (Loving v. Va., Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas) strongly suggest that the statute violates the equal protection rights of gays. Second, the 10th Amend. reserves certain traditional powers to the states. Among those powers are making the call on marriage, divorce, and related issues. These are not issues on which the federal government has constitutional authority. What is surprising is that the court even mentioned the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently gutted it. Even some of the conservatives on the Court were complicit (e.g. Rehnquist). In part the Amendment is a "truism," but there is more to it than that. I hope this decision will lead to a renaissance of the Tenth Amendment. At various times both the Left and Right have attempted to resist federal authority, although the Tenth Amendment is viewed primarily as a conservative issue. Note however, the opinion states the the 10th amend does NOT invalidate the law by itself. The court does not, IMHO, go far enough with the Tenth Amendment argument. The court wrote:
" Federalism. In assailing DOMA, the
plaintiffs and especially the Commonwealth rely directly on limitations
attributed to the Spending Clause of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment;
the Justice Department, along with the Legal Group, rejects those claims. In our
view, neither the Tenth Amendment nor the Spending Clause invalidates DOMA; but
Supreme Court precedent relating to federalism-based challenges to federal laws
reinforce the need for closer than usual scrutiny of DOMA's justifications and
diminish somewhat the deference ordinarily accorded."
Be that as it may, if you want to preserve the Second Amendment and revitalize the Tenth, I think you know who you want in the White House nominating people for Supreme Court vacancies.