Is this what Obama truly thinks?
Depending upon who you ask, marriage is either a basic human right or solely the right of a man and a woman. Don’t ask why and don’t tell people your views unless you’re prepared to face the whirlwind. And if you manage to engage an uncivilized sort in this discussion, be prepared for unsecured loans and an instant payday loan for the ER bill… some people like to talk with their fists.
Me, I prefer civil discussion… in the same way that the Civil War was civil. So sit down. Make yourself comfortable. You’ll need to be ready for what I’m about to share with you:
President Barack Obama’s Justice Department has defended the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). They have done so in ways that disappoint some, disgust others and leave an unjustifiably vocal minority with a self-satisfied smile. If we were to listen to the latter group’s thoughts, perhaps we’d hear their palpable smugness. They’re quite happy that an invisible man will smite “those people” down. That’s America, baby. And we suffer in the eyes of the rest of the civilized world because of it. When will this country grow up?
Getting hitched – or a hitch in the swing?
DOMA, which was initially signed by President Bill Clinton, is a federal law that defines marriage being between a man and a woman. It gives states the power to not recognize same sex marriages that have been authorized in other states. However, there are those who argue that this is unconstitutional, based primarily upon the laws/clauses of Due Process and Equal Protection as found within the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet what has most protesters up in arms is the language the Justice Department uses to refer to the issues in play. For reference, the following document refers to the recent California gay marriage case against the United States of America. Following the document are some of the high points we should know about. Special thanks to America Blog for their coverage.
Justice Department’s list of atrocities
1. They reference incest and people marrying children
From the above document:
The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).
And this makes DOMA constitutional, as you argue? That would eliminate the potential of future lawsuits. Surely you want to take a mulligan on that, Obama Justice Administration.
2. Or are you going to go with “it saves us money?”
This is rich:
“The constitutional propriety of Congress’s decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress’s articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources – and deciding to extend benefits incrementally – are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 (”There is nothing irrational about Congress’s stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal.”); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) (”[P]rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress’ line drawing in this instance.”). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose.”
3. “They” have no constitutional right to marriage, eh?
Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (”DOMA”) poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.
4. If DOMA is “cautiously limited,” I’m Kim Kardashian
DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society’s still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage.
5. “Wait, you’re gay. You don’t deserve your time in court” (my paraphrase), says the good ol’ JD:
Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above – and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California – DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental – in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification…
…the right to privacy encompasses only rights that are constitutionally fundamental, and, as noted earlier, the right to receive benefits on the basis of same-sex marriage (as well as same-sex marriage itself) has not been recognized by the courts as a fundamental right.
And you won’t be counted in the Census, either (if this applies to you).
6. Must… remain… neutral!
Section 3 of DOMA reflects just such an approach: it maximizes democratic flexibility and self-governance under our federalist system, by adopting a policy of federal neutrality with respect to a matter that is primarily the concern of state government. Because all 50 States recognize heterosexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage. At the same time, because Congress recognized both the freedom of States to expand the traditional definition, and the freedom of other States to decline to recognize this newer form of marriage, a policy of neutrality dictated that Congress not extend federal benefits to new forms of marriage recognized by some States…
…In short, therefore, DOMA, understood for what it actually does, infringes on no one’s rights, and in all events it infringes on no right that has been constitutionally protected as fundamental, so as to invite heightened scrutiny… This policy of neutrality maximizes state autonomy and democratic self-governance in an area of traditional state concern, and preserves scarce government resources. It is thus entirely rational.
Say what?
Keep telling yourselves that, Obama Justice Department. Clearly the language of DOMA is unacceptable in a civil, enlightened society that no longer stones wrongdoers to death in public. If the President expects to be reelected for a second term, this will have to be changed quickly. Whether a same-sex couple can receive a marriage license is a state-to-state matter for now, but honoring a marriage contract is a Constitutional issue. Marry in one state, it should be honored in another in the event of a move or other circumstance. That’s the way it seems to me. I’m not a lawyer, but it doesn’t take a legal background to understand the difference between right and wrong. So the Justice Department ought to stay out of issues like the privacy of marriage… not to mention whether I can get unsecured loans or an instant payday loan to be able to pay for the stamps on the letters I send to my elected officials. Because it’s so expensive anymore…
Related Video:
