Once again, we get a prominent news article about the hurt feelings of people in same-sex relationships because they aren’t happy with the law or the legal process, and because the law is set up for the over 90 percent of people who will enter into marriage (bride+groom) and thus is inconvenient for other associations. This one is from David Crary via the Associated Press.
I highly doubt that any of the couples cited in the article were ignorant of DOMA when they applied for state marriage licenses.
The article goes on to poll dance:
It's a long article, but with no quote from someone against the neutering of marriage. It was interesting to read that the homofascists are demanding that law firms not take up the defense of DOMA... if they know what's good for 'em.
I wonder if the people quoted in this article would support immigration rights and marital status for a Muslim man along with all four of his legal wives? Will we see an AP story about such a thing? If Michigan were to legalize one man having four wives, and a man so married moved to Massachusetts with all four wives, would the marriage neutering people be demanding Massachusetts and the federal government recognize the marriages?
And again, I know it is a ridiculous comparison. Polygamy has a long history around the world as recognized marriage, after all.
Because of DOMA, some binational couples still worry about deportation of the non-citizen spouse. Survivor benefits aren't granted after one spouse dies. And couples filing joint tax returns in the states allowing same-sex marriage must still file separately this month with the IRS.Federal law, especially immigration law, is supposed to benefit the nation. The reason certain legal assignments have been made to marriage is precisely because it unites both sexes and can naturally produce new citizens automatically placed under the responsibilities of the married. State licensing brideless or groomless couples as married does not change the motivation of the federal government, although you can argue the Constitutional requirements.
I highly doubt that any of the couples cited in the article were ignorant of DOMA when they applied for state marriage licenses.
When DOMA was passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1996, and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was a pre-emptive strike. There were no legally married same-sex couples in the United States.Like I said.
The article goes on to poll dance:
DOMA's foes are heartened by several recent opinion polls showing, for the first time, that more than half of Americans are ready to accept legal same-sex marriage.Accepting civil unions is not the same thing as being in favor of neutering marriage.
It's a long article, but with no quote from someone against the neutering of marriage. It was interesting to read that the homofascists are demanding that law firms not take up the defense of DOMA... if they know what's good for 'em.
I wonder if the people quoted in this article would support immigration rights and marital status for a Muslim man along with all four of his legal wives? Will we see an AP story about such a thing? If Michigan were to legalize one man having four wives, and a man so married moved to Massachusetts with all four wives, would the marriage neutering people be demanding Massachusetts and the federal government recognize the marriages?
And again, I know it is a ridiculous comparison. Polygamy has a long history around the world as recognized marriage, after all.
It's another hit piece against the institution of marriage, trying to establish a de facto acceptance. Gay activist tactics also belie a disregard for the rule of law. Any means justify the ends in their case.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest gay lobby group, the HRC, a leading light in the SSM campaign, has turned its efforts to lobbying top law firms not to represent the defense of DOMA in a federal court cases launched by the opponents of the marriage idea.
ReplyDeleteLiterally, they want to render the defense of marriage itself, indefensible and thus render the marriage idea a no-show.
That falsehood -- that the marriage idea is a no-show even as they attack it and demand its replacement by the SSM idea -- demonstrates that the SSMers are not up to defending the SSM idea on its own merits (and demerits). The best they can do is attack the core meaning of marriage, the reasonable basis for marriage law, and the principles of good governance.