Did You Know the Los Angeles Times Backs SSM?

Surprise, surprise – theLos Angeles Times ran a couple of editorials expressing their support of neutering marriage. This one praises President Obama as “courageous” for choosing not to defend DOMA.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, deserves to sink into oblivion.

It is bad enough that any state issues marriage licenses to a brideless or groomless couple. No government should recognize "same-sex marriage" any more than it should recognize "square circles".

The president is not obligated to defend laws that are unconstitutional and thus indefensible.

By the same reasoning, a court trial should not be available to someone who is obviously guilty. Isn't the constitutionality the precise question being discussed in the court cases?

In the meantime, the president has set an important precedent for how his administration will regard existing and future laws that restrict the rights of gays and lesbians.

DOMA does not restrict the rights of homosexual people beyond any restriction placed on anyone else. The editorial board, like so many others, performs a sleight of hand trick by equating internal feelings with external behavior; by denying that equal treatment is actually equal.

In the other editorial, the paper demands that the federal court go head and have California issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples now, rather than waiting to actually decide the appeal. (That would give them cause to complain that a court "took away a right" should a court later affirm Proposition 8. The paper doesn't mind new restrictions on the Second Amendment, however.)

Meanwhile, a stay pending the outcome of the appeal has kept gay weddings from going forward.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Any group of any size or gender combination can have "weddings" right now. However, you'd get a different impression based on the several phrases in the editorial.

The editorial board cites Judge Walker's decision finding a Constitutional "right" to a state marriage license without a bride or without a groom. So if SCOTUS eventually decides there is no such right, will the editorial board agree that the right has disappeared? I don't believe courts grant rights; they recognize them. I believe rights come from God. Where does the editorial board think they come from? Don't they consider SCOTUS the final judicial authority?