Gay marriage is banned in communist countries (see China, for instance), but the comrades at the NYT are so obsessed with the concept of institutionalizing sodomy that they are willing to criticize their Lord and Master Obama in an editorial:
The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.
Lesbianism may be "hot" - gay marriage is not. Courtesy, scrape.tv
The administration doesn’t need a new direction – the media does. The NYT needs to stop portraying gay marriage as an inalienable right. The media needs to stop advocating a position that is the opposite of what the MAJORITY feels. The attached PDF shows that even in a CNN poll, 54% of the general public opposes gay marriage.
…The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.
Marriage is a religious institution. Recognizing marriage can only be done if that union is sanctioned by a religion. Just an incestuous marriage will be unacceptable, gay marriage would be too. And, that restriction would be completely reasonable.
These are comparisons that understandably rankle many gay people. In a letter to President Obama on Monday, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”
Sodomy and incest. Let’s take look. Homosexual sodomy is abominable and a sin, in Christianity for one. Incest is a sin too. The same is true in all major religions. As such, sodomy = incest when it comes to their religious status. Ergo, same-sex marriage = incestuous marriage, as far as the religions are concerned. So Solmonese, yes, your marriage is no more allowable than that between a father and a daughter, for instance.
The brief also maintains that the Defense of Marriage Act represents a “cautious policy of federal neutrality” — an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits — such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns — that heterosexual married couples receive.
“Odd assertion”? DOMA is pretty straight-forward:
- No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
- The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The first clause makes marriage more of a state issue, by allowing states to decide whether they want to recognize and allow gay marriage. It is, in my opinion, redundant – federal government cannot interfere in such matters, because of the constitution’s inter-state commerce clause. Cross border gay marriage recognition is not commerce-related and so the federal government cannot prevent or impose it.
As for the second clause, marriage is not a right. It is definitely not a “fundamental” right, such as those guaranteed by the Constitution or international agreements. It is, if anything, a privilege. You cannot get married unless you’re of such and such age. You cannot get married unless you find a willing partner (go marry yourself?). You cannot remain married if your partner doesn’t want to. Sounds like a privilege now? As such, Congress has authority to decide such non-right, so to speak, matters. And, it doesn’t want to recognize gay marriage.
The whole matter of “discrimination” can be explained by the fact that certain privileges and even rights are and can be restricted for certain groups. Felons aren’t allowed to vote. Children aren’t allowed to vote or get married. Gays aren’t allowed to get married.
In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule.
Aww, poor buggers. Obama flip-flopped again.
If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.
“Less hurtful way”? Give me a break. How is stating that heterosexual marriage is the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage” hurtful or inflammatory? It is merely stating the facts.
The best approach of all would have been to make clear, even as it defends the law in court, that it is fighting for gay rights. It should work to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans gay men and lesbians in the military from being open about their sexuality. It should push hard for a federal law banning employment discrimination. It should also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress.
It doesn’t want to. Bite me.
