Only cavemen and troglodytes believe that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has any meaning.
For those of you who weren't home-schooled, the Tenth Amendment is a legal fiction. Most historians call it an inkblot which James Madison tried unsuccessfully to wipe away from that precious parchment. Some superstitious types see this when they read it:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So of course, the Honorable Joseph L. Tauro, of the Federal District Court of Massachusetts, couldn't have meant it when he wrote today:
This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status … The federal government, by enacting and enforcing [the Defense of Marriage Act], plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.
Because that sounds an awful lot like saying that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a power, reserved to it alone, to regulate marriage among its citizens. Which plainly cannot be true.
For what it's worth, I agree with Judge Tauro's holding, but I can't imagine how he could be correct in saying that a state, or individual people for that matter, has some power upon which the federal government cannot encroach without concluding that the Tenth Amendment actually exists, and means something.
Help me out here people. I can't make head nor tail of what this Judge has written: commonwealth massachusetts v health and human services DOMA decision and gill v OPM DOMA decision