The Quest to Reorganize All of Society by Judge

David G. Savage writes in the Los Angeles Times about the strategy of a marriage neutering advocacy group, which is being aided by the paper, which presents behavior advocacy as though it is a natural part of a larger civil rights struggle.

In its quest to legalize [SSM], the group, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, sought to win rulings to establish the civil rights principle that discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Bride+groom requirements in marriage licensing do not discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation. County clerks do not ask, before issuing a marriage license, "Hey, are you straight? Gay? Bisexual? Asexual? Pansexual?" Marriage, like any personal association, is entirely voluntary in this country. It is Constitutional, moral, practical, and often necessary to treat different kinds of associations and different behaviors differently.

After a federal District Court in Boston struck down the Defense of Marriage Act last year and the Obama administration announced last week that it would no longer defend it, the Boston group has a clear pathway to the Supreme Court that would allow the justices to rule in favor of equal rights for gay couples without facing the much broader question of whether all the states must authorize same-sex marriages.

I just don't see how this is possible. Let's assume SCOTUS make a fundamental shift in the entire concept of Constitutional rights for individuals and does rule, shifting to a concept of "rights for groups", that an association of two men, an association of two women, and an association of a man and woman must all be treated equally.* A state with domestic partnerships can say, "We already do this." Marriage neutering advocates are not going to settle for that, even if the federal government also treats domestic partnerships the same as marriage. So, eventually, it will go back to SCOTUS again. Now, I can see saying that SCOTUS would then have a harder time denying marriage neutering advocates what they want – a SCOTUS-imposed redefinition of the word "marriage" - but the article doesn't spell that out.

Like other articles in the paper and other major news media, the article equates neutering marriage with gay rights. However, wherever marriage licensing is neutered, any two people of the same sex can get one regardless of sexual orientation. But you'll never hear marriage neutering as "friendship rights" or "roommate rights".

Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for GLAD, said the Boston group's lawsuits on behalf of gay couples focus on the principle of equal treatment under the law.

"The federal government doesn't marry people. States decide on marriage," she said. "We are asking, 'Why can the federal government treat one group of married people differently from another?'"

I'm sure a Muslim family consisting of one husband, four wives, and their children would like to know, too.

The Obama administration said last week that it believed this heightened-scrutiny standard was also the right way to judge discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Again, it isn't discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is distinguishing between different kinds of associations and different behaviors. But as the article details in a roundabout way, the homosexuality advocates are hoping SCOTUS will prevent treating these different things differently in any way - not just marriage licensing.

*A nationwide requirement to treat these three different kinds of associations as though they were all the same would have implications in all sorts of areas that marriage neutering advocates and homosexuality advocates likely haven't considered much. If men can form an association and call it whatever they want without being required to admit women, it will be very interesting to see the return of male-only clubs. What will Gloria Allred do?