In the campaign for marriage equality, the courts have been the most conspicuous player. But Congress also matters.Yes! There are other branches of government. Also, states are not mere districts of the federal government. The federal government eminates from the states, not the other way around. Likewise, the people have a government, not the other way around.
A bill to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, wouldn't legalize same-sex marriage - that's beyond the power of the federal government - but it would safeguard the rights of married gay and lesbian couples to federal benefits.Apparently, the Los Angeles Times editorial board doesn’t think that federal courts are part of the federal government. Or did they somehow reverse their opinion of Walker's decision? Federal benefits, especially employment benefits, are not a right. For anyone.
Conventional wisdom has been that spousal and survivors' benefits and family leave were offered because of a division of labor between bride and groom, and the children that tend to result from natural, normal interaction between them.The Respect for Marriage Act makes it clear that same-sex couples - if married in a state that recognizes their unions - will be eligible for federal benefits ranging from Social Security spousal and survivors' benefits to family leave when a partner is ill.
The conventional wisdom is that the Respect for Marriage Act can't succeed in Congress.
A recent Pew poll found that 45% of adults now support [neutering] marriage, compared to 46% who oppose it.So much for the other recent headlines that claim a majority support neutering marriage.
As for DOMA, a poll this month by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights organization, found that 51% of respondents opposed the law, while 34% supported it.How many people oppose DOMA on federalist principles? Regardless, it is entertaining to see the paper tout polls now, when it was an official poll that passed Proposition 8 and other like laws.
Even with those numbers, the Respect for Marriage Act faces resistance in Congress, which raises the issue of presidential leadership. President Obama attracted considerable attention when he decided not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in federal court. He should bring the same passion for equality to the debate over the Respect for Marriage Act.
Never tear down a wall unless you know why it is there. Can the editorial board explain why states license marriages in the first place?
If Obama really wanted to solve this issue in a compromise that would be likely to gain enough support, he'd propose a Constitutional amendment that: 1. enshrined the federal definition of marriage in the Constitution, 2. enshrined a state’s ability to include the bride+groom requirement in their own state marriage licensing and recognition, and 3. allowed the federal government to recognize domestic partnerships/civil unions/neutered marriage licenses as "federal domestic partners". The marriage neutering advocates bent on supplanting marriage would not be happy, but a lot of homosexual people would be happy and a majority of Americans would support something like that. The court cases would all be over.
You're too optimistic. Even with a constitutional amendment, the courts would still be full to the brim. Just look at the continued leftist attempts to neutralize the 2nd Amendment through any means possible.
ReplyDeleteThe law will never change the ideology. Only promoting a better and more truthful story can do that. Laws only safeguard those who are willing to abide by the law. Leftists have proven that they think their ideology is more important than the law. (Hence, Obama's decision not to defend DOMA.)