CMA, DOMA, and Maine Update

An editorial in today's Los Angeles Times shills for the assumption that there is a "right" to neutered marriage licenses (though, curiously, they ignore trios). They side with Equality California in the tactics to fight the California Marriage Amendment.

The most important objective should be a decisive victory, sending a clear message that this state no longer will tolerate separate but not-quite-equal status for families based on sexual orientation.

There is always going to be inequality between families. A family headed by a bride+groom, if nothing else, unites both basic elements of society into a social, legal, and spiritual association. More importantly, it is generally going to provide a better environment for children than a man and woman who are simply cohabitating, or a single parent of either sex, or a same-sex pairing, whether or not that pairing has official sanction from the state government. Some families will have loving, helpful grandparents in-home or nearby, and others won't. So let's not pretend that neutering marriage licensing will make all family structures equal, and we shouldn't pretend they are. One bride+one groom is an equal pairing, uniting both sexes.

[Much more after the jump.]

Gay-rights activists must recognize that their lackluster campaign did little to sway the public, especially considering the misleading ads by gay-marriage opponents.

Misleading? If you want to talk about misleading, why were no same-sex ceremonies or couples shown in the "No on 8" ads? I'd say ads showing Mormon missionaries barging into homes and destroying property to be misleading, too, along with ads showing relocation camps. Citing likely consequences is not misleading.

In the newspaper's blog today, Carol J. Williams reports that Obama administration lawyers are "reluctantly defending" the federal DOMA in the case of a California same-sex couple.

West urged the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Mission Viejo without addressing the merit of their claims that the federal law is unconstitutional.

Could this be because they are afraid the court would find DOMA to be Constitutional?

Smelt and Hammer haven't shown that they have been adversely affected by the federal law, West argued, because their marriage is legal in California and they haven't applied for any federal benefits that would be denied under the Defense of Marriage Act.

What, hurt feelings don't count?

In an earlier entry on that blog, Jessica Garrison connected some of the dots between California and Maine.

[Maine’s] Legislature voted last spring to allow gay marriage -- but only if the measure survives a so-called "people's veto" in which voters will have a chance to review the Legislature’s decision.

Is that really an accurate way of describing the situation? "Allow"? They voted to neuter marriage licensing. Same-sex couples were already "allowed" to hold ceremonies and commit to each other.