Elections have consequences.The Obama administration, in a major shift on gay rights, says it will not defend in court the federal law that bars the government from recognizing same-sex marriages and giving equal benefits to gay couples.
"After careful consideration, the president of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal-protection component" of the U.S. Constitution, announced Atty. Gen. Eric Holder.
In his legal analysis, discrimination against gays "warrants heightened scrutiny," not general acceptance. "There is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities, based on prejudice and stereotypes that continue to have ramifications today,"What does this have to do with the fact that the uniting of a bride and groom is fundamentally different than other kinds of unions? Also, heterosexual coitus is objectively different and of more importance to society than homosexual sodomy. If homosexual people insisted they needed to dump oil in the ocean to be happy, would we have to go ahead and change the law for them because of discrimination?
He also cited "recent evolutions" of the law in courts and state legislatures recognizing the principle of equal treatment for gays and lesbians.Bride+groom marriage licensing is equal treatment.
Until now, the Obama administration had taken the view that it had a duty to defend all laws, including discriminatory measures, so long as they could be justified as constitutional. In this instance, the administration could see no "reasonable arguments" to defend a law that denies equal benefits to legally married gay couples, he said.Actually, I'm not opposed to the federal government recognizing state law. But then I think many federal government programs shouldn't exist in the first place, nor do I think courts (mostly) in those states should have neutered marriage licensing to begin with.
Until now, the government's official position was that official discrimination based on sexual orientation was generally constitutional.
I'm not sure how it is possible for anyone to discriminate against someone based on their internal feelings. It is possible, and often necessary, to distinguish between different behaviors and different kinds of associations.
Meanwhile, in California, Maura Dolan reports at LATimes.com that marriage neutering advocates want to pretend that the legal dispute over the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, is over.
Lawyers challenging Proposition 8 urged a federal appeals court Wednesday to lift an order preventing gays from marrying and called on the California Supreme Court to speed up its review of a key issue in the case.Gay individuals can "marry" another individual of the same-sex right now, and those individuals also have the same access to state marriage licensing as anyone else.
The challengers asked that the stay be removed on the grounds that the California Supreme Court is going to delay the case roughly another year and that even President Obama has said bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.It's... not... a... ban. Like I said, state law matters. Just because Obama has decided to abandon defending federal law does not mean that anything should be changed to remove the current stay in the state of California.
And the irony is the President Obama has created "National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse" @ fatherhood.gov, while Fist Lady Michelle Obama outlaid an initiative to encourage mothers to breastfeed their infants with tax incentives. The White House knows well the importance of a mother and a father, but won't defend the relationship that brings them together.
ReplyDeleteshrugs shoulders
Another one for the "nothing bad has happened yet" crowd...
ReplyDeleteThis is just another example about how neutering marriage not only depends on bad governance, but promotes it. President Obama is trying to establish the precedent that Presidents are allowed to pick and choose which laws on the books they will enforce and which they won't. Imagine what laws a future racist president might choose to "veto" in this unconstitutional way.
Where did Obama get the idea? From Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown, of course. Bad governance builds on itself. It obeys no law, so there is nothing that limits it once it takes hold.
Neutering marriage is irrational and it cannot be established on the principles of good governance, therefore the neutered marriage crowd pushes for bad governance. They are sowing the wind.
Hadley Arkes comments on this here. Note the questions he suggests President Obama be asked:
ReplyDeleteDoes he think that a “same-sex marriage” would be available to people of the same sex who are not gays or lesbians, couples who claim no erotic or sexual relation? Would it be available to two widows or two widowers, trying to pool their social security savings and deal with the medical expenses incurred by their late spouses? Gay and lesbian activists have opposed the inclusion of these couples with no erotic relation. Would the president, however, exclude them from the good he would make available now in accepting same-sex unions?
● But if the president joins the activists in insisting only on an erotic or sexual relation here, how would that relation be manifested? After all the activists and their allies in the courts have insisted that “consummation” can no longer be required: Not every marriage produces children, and older people can get married long past the age of begetting. But if consummation is not at all required for marriage as we have known it, would it now be absolutely required for a same-sex marriage? And how would the president claim to know, say whether two widows have consummated their union? Is there some further device, lurking in the she of the people who have given us the scanners at the airport? Something in the style of Woody Allen’s “orgasamatron”?
● Is there some ground on which the president would rule out of same-sex marriage the union of a father and son, mother and daughter? We don’t encounter here the old concerns cast up with incest. And so what could be the problem — once one accepts marriage between people of the same sex?
● And of course, if marriage has nothing to do with begetting, if it can be entered into by people of the same sex, why is it confined to two people? What would the President say to the growing numbers of the “polyamorous” in the country? Their loves are not confined to a coupling. They are woven together in ensembles of three, four, and more. If marriage is about love, rather than begetting, why should these people not be allowed to have their love expressed in marriage?
Gay people being married is like pouring oil in the ocean? Because of what? Gay love? Is it the sex thing? Gay sex is like toxic chemicals destroying nature? Gay sex kills dolphins?
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure that "straight marriage" isn't damaged by "gay marriage", just like "christian marriage" isn't damaged by "jewish marriage" or "hindu marriage".
bob: Gay people being married is like pouring oil in the ocean?
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of examples of "gay people being marriage" now and happily. Nobody objects to that. It is the redefinition of marriage that is the issue.
Just to concur with op-ed. It isn't about what we are accepting, rather what we are denying. Even gay people have a mom and dad, and both are equally important. It's not a judgement against gay couples, rather it's a judgment against straight ones. Why can't we judge straight couples, and acknowledge that heterosexual activity brings on the life of an individual? Why can't we promote an ideal that obligations arise when you get pregnant, and yes, we can't force marriage we need to make it reasonable enough for couples to create healthy relationships for their children.
ReplyDeletebob: Gay people being married is like pouring oil in the ocean?
ReplyDeleteNo, but neutering the concept of marriage is.
I am pretty sure that "straight marriage" isn't damaged by "gay marriage".
In addition to the erroneous terminology, here is the typical "what could possibly go wrong?" attitude. So, when something does go wrong, you can then deny all responsibility with "How were we supposed to know?"
R.K. It begs the question, if redefining marriage had no affect on public policy or the general public, then what's the point of government recognizing gay marriage. We recognize marriage, because we know heterosexual activity creates children. Babies are an expected result, even if unplanned.
ReplyDeleteI want to remind people I live in Massachusetts, I believe and support our anti-discrimination laws that protect sexual orientation. It's that orientation and behavior are two different things. One doesn't have to be sexually active to be straight or gay. You are who you are, and that must be respected.
Yes, it sounds so traditional, conservative, even oppressive... but obligations arise when a child is created. By biological science, an individual has a mom and a dad, we want them to be accountable and obligatory to the emotional/financial well being of that individual. That's what marriage use to do from a public policy point of view.