House GOP leaders will appeal latest Defense of Marriage Act ruling

posted at 5:05 pm on February 24, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Federal court judge Jeffrey White ruled yesterday that a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. It violates the principle to equal protection under the law to offer healthcare benefits to heterosexual couples but deny them to homosexual couples, White wrote in his decision on Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management.

House GOP leaders announced today that they will appeal the decision — to California’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

The action by the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which moved on behalf of GOP leaders, will send the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which earlier this month ruled against a ban on gay marriage in California. …

When the suit was originally filed, the Department of Justice was set to challenge Golinski in court, but that changed last year when the Obama administration said it would no longer defend DOMA.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) then took up the fight by hiring a private law firm to represent the House Bipartisan Legal Adviser Group.

It’s hard not to think the Justice Department’s decision to abandon its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act played a part in how this case shook out, but, at this point, that’s immaterial. What matters next is the appeal — but in California’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? Good luck with that, GOPers.

This is just the latest bit of news to remind me that the more benefits the government confers, the more power it has to determine the conditions for those benefits. If gay activists have made one thing apparent to me, it’s that the legal status of “marriage” is a benefit. But is it really for the government to decide who is or is not married? It’s the government’s role to secure the inalienable rights of men. How do tax breaks for married couples — or any of the many other legal benefits gay couples so assiduously seek — secure basic rights? It’s probably not even the government’s role to incentivize marriage, no matter how good for society the time-honored institution has demonstrated itself to be.

Presumably, the government became involved in the marriage “industry” because marriages traditionally entail the combination of property, and the government does have a role in protecting property rights. But why can’t the government protect property rights without conferring the benefit of “marriage” on any couple? Leave marriage entirely to churches and other voluntary organizations — and do not dictate to churches what the definition of marriage should be. I’d be far less wary of activists for gay legal “marriage” if this administration had proved itself more committed to the protection of religious liberty, that’s for sure. What concerns me is the day the state begins to tell churches they cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples. Whatever will forestall that is the path advocates for traditional (and especially sacramental) marriage should pursue — and that might just be to get the government out of the marriage business entirely.

Update: Newt Gingrich says there’s a “right way” to legalize gay marriage.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

And the appeal will win.

platypus on February 24, 2012 at 5:08 PM

what a waste of taxpayer money! where’s the tea party???

DBear on February 24, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Appealing to the Ninth Circus is a waste of time in itself, but that’s the only path available to get to SCOTUS.

teke184 on February 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I guess they didn’t get the memo that if you add up the Federal and State debts…

… we are now looking at +$19.5 Trillion dollars.

And it’s growing…

Seven Percent Solution on February 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Teh Gheys!

Pablo Honey on February 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Just get it to SCOTUS

Flapjackmaka on February 24, 2012 at 5:10 PM

The Court Clerk for the 9th Circuit will just confirm everything, and mail his decision back to the Appellant.

Hell, it’s gonna be that kind of a slam-dunk – in the 9th Circuit.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 24, 2012 at 5:11 PM

If I were an employer the only logical solution would be to stop offering employer sponsored HC altogether. I’d pay the fine and move on.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Oh, great. Not a peep about Obama’s pledge to ignore the Constitution and legislate without Congress. Not a peep about requiring Catholics to pay for abortions and birth control. Not a peep about gas prices, inflation, the deficit, unemployment, drilling for oil, not even a word about Barack’s bone-headed algae proposal! Not one fuc*ing word of reproach for the president from these bloated, useless, drunken buffoons. But the gays? Oh, yeah. They’re all in. Gotta go after the gay thing. All that other stuff will just work itself out, I suppose. Stupidest. Party. Ever.

Rational Thought on February 24, 2012 at 5:17 PM

*sigh…

MeatHeadinCA on February 24, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Whatever…..when are these “elected officials” going to start going after the IMPORTANT

sicoit on February 24, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Tina, the latter half of your post indicates the extent to which the Zeitgeist has distorted your perception. I suggest spending some time reading and thinking. Not only does the Left ignore history, ethics and reality, but those who are supposed to be on the Right side of the political spectrum do as well.

INC on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

If you actually read the DoM act.. It probably is unconstitutional.

Critic2029 on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

(darn submit, hit too early)
STUFF!

sicoit on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Update: Newt Gingrich says there’s a “right way” to legalize gay marriage.

Since we’re bringing up the issue, which candidates disagree with Newt and why?

MeatHeadinCA on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Rational Thought on February 24, 2012 at 5:17 PM

This is in the same category as the contraception rule. Forces employers to potentially go against their own religious conscience.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Update: Newt Gingrich says there’s a “right way” to legalize gay marriage.

Since we’re bringing up the issue, which candidates disagree with Newt and why?

MeatHeadinCA on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Even Rush somewhat supports civil unions.

Critic2029 on February 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM

If you actually read the DoM act.. It probably is unconstitutional.

Critic2029 on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

How so? *I haven’t read DoM.

MeatHeadinCA on February 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Sounds like the French got it right… In France, as I understand it, the key legal and financial aspects of marriage (inheritance etc.) are covered by “civil unions.” If you want to legally marry, the first step is you must register your partnership with the government. The optional part is the marriage ceremony itself, which is the domain of religious organizations.

I.e., same sex couples receive the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples (which nowadays is reasonably uncontroversial almost everywhere in the U.S. as long as the “marriage” term is not used). But if you want to marry your same sex partner, you can’t force the Roman Catholic church to perform the ceremony. You have to join a liberal church instead, but anyway the ceremony is not legally binding and it’s not part of the government domain.

Since there is no consensus on gay marriage but the position advocated by sexual minorities is growing stronger, wouldn’t it be a good idea to transfer the definition of “marriage” from the government to religious organizations? This way, neither side is able to force its defintion of “marriage” onto the other.

MARCU$

mlindroo on February 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM

It violates the principle to equal protection under the law to offer healthcare benefits to heterosexual couples but deny them to homosexual couples,

Is the word couples here any particular kind of couple in the ruling?

However, all people, gay and straight, are free to have healthcare benefits for their heterosexual spouse, the one that they might have children with. That is not taken away from you by government just because you are gay, it might be something you don’t choose for yourself, but it is equally available. I do know people who have had a hetero spouse and then later choose someone of their gender. I am sure the hetero spouse received insurance coverage if they were entitled to it.

So, what does this judge mean by “couples?” Employers don’t just give away benefits to any old “couples,” there has to be some reason. And some employers do give the benefits if you just document your intentions in something as simple as a partnership.

Benefits are available, that can’t be the argument.

Fleuries on February 24, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Even Rush somewhat supports civil unions.

Critic2029 on February 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Of course he does. He’s not a hardline social conservative, but he knows what’s worth fighting for – abortion, for example.

But CU are different than “gay marriage.”

MeatHeadinCA on February 24, 2012 at 5:25 PM

What concerns me is the day the state begins to tell churches they cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples.

This is their primary goal, attack religious organizations. You know that is coming.

Mirimichi on February 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Same principle applies as with illegal immigration: you cannot simultaneously have an unlimited welfare state AND allow any old person who wants benefits to come and sign up for them.

We could get the government out of defining “marriage” as soon as there’s no longer any such thing as a progressive income tax, welfare, medicare, social security, etc. As long as our grandchildren are obligated to bankroll these massive benefits, we get to say who is eligible for them and who isn’t.

joe_doufu on February 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Rational Thought on February 24, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Cause you know, selectively defending the laws of land based on the President’s personal preferences is Constitutionally kosher.

For someone with the moniker Rational Thought, you’re awfully quick to cave to social pressure from irrational, extremist minority rights groups. “Just give the gays what they want guys I know it has repercussions but we can’t win this!”

BKennedy on February 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Wow. I very rarely agree with Tina on anything, but this is pretty well spot-on. Get the government out of the marriage business.

sobincorporated on February 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Tina, I realize that, as a gay Republican, my opinion will probably be the minority in the comments, but one of the “benefits” that actual marriage confers is that the government recognizes the two married people are more than just strangers (or, at best, roommates). They become a unit. And I don’t think the government “de-recognizing” straight marriages is going to be a solution to the problem. You would honestly rather “de-recognize” all the 100+ million straight marriages in the USA than allow a few thousand gay couples to participate?

Full disclosure: I have a lot of skin in this game. My boyfriend, the man I want to marry and live the rest of my life with, is from another country. I love him as much as anyone ever loved another human being, and we are each other’s family. However, eventually he will have to return home, and I will have to make a choice to either go back with him and live in a corrupt third-world country where I don’t speak the language, or else stay here in the land of my birth–the country I love–and lose him forever.

For those of you who are married, think about what it would mean to have to choose between your spouse and living in America.

TSUGambler on February 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM

TSUGambler on February 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM

How ridiculous of you to choose to love him!

/

sobincorporated on February 24, 2012 at 5:33 PM

once again proving why they are called the party of Stupid.

Here’s what the party of Smart (cunning, sleazy, and tricky) do…change their philosophy on Soc Sec over the period of a decade, then implement with the Dumb Party’s support (because we’re in a depression)…and voila!…SS will from here on just be one more welfare program from the rich to the poor elderly….(I know, I know, the left always was against this…until they weren’t…and they run the country)

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/109216

And here’s why you should read the entire article…it shows who really runs the country…when the left decides something it will get done. End of Story.

This country may think it is ‘conservative’…or ‘center-right’ but seriously there is no out-cry when the left marches on its path. Oh, sure, among the wingnuts….in the Rump Party (the nativist, retrograde homophobic, religionist party)

r keller on February 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Mirimichi on February 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Exactly.

One of the rock bottom issues here is religious liberty. In early 2006, Chai Feldlum said, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

I saw this today:

EXCLUSIVE: Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexuality a sin in class says Alberta gvmt

Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.

“Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate disrespect for differences,” Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications, told LifeSiteNews on Wednesday evening.

You know what’s ironic? Christians in the U.S. have no desire to see homosexuals go to jail.

Homosexual activists are doing everything they can to take us to the point where Christians go to jail for holding to their religious beliefs.

INC on February 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Realistically, the government cannot “get out of the marriage business” as long as marriage involves things like property rights, inheritance, immigration, social security, hospital visitation, power of attorney, taxes, etc. If the government is willing to treat all married people the same as strangers living in the same house, then I guess it’s not a problem. But I can’t see that as a realistic possibility.

TSUGambler on February 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM

They become a unit. And I don’t think the government “de-recognizing” straight marriages is going to be a solution to the problem. You would honestly rather “de-recognize” all the 100+ million straight marriages in the USA than allow a few thousand gay couples to participate?

I would.

For those of you who are married, think about what it would mean to have to choose between your spouse and living in America.

TSUGambler on February 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM

I’ve thought of this before. First, it’s not extremely easy-peasy to get your spouse a GC. Takes some money and time and restrictions.

Why not reform the immigration system so that people in civil unions could more easily sponsor their partners to get permanent status?

MeatHeadinCA on February 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM

actual Text of Defense of Marriage Act.

The main provisions of the act are as follows:[11]

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

It teeters over the edge of constitutionality when it 1) defined marriage and 2) explicitly called out same sex marriage. It would have been fine if all it did was solidify the 10th amendment idea that one state doesn’t have to recognize another states’s marriages.

Now the Fed HAD to define marriage because there are other laws that reference marriage and they didn’t want to give gay couples the same incentives that they give married couples. This smacks of a violation of equal protection.

It’s a mess all around, and it needs to be fixed one way or another. The Defense Of Marriage act though is bad legislstion and deserves to be overturned.

Critic2029 on February 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM

You know what’s ironic? Christians in the U.S. have no desire to see homosexuals go to jail.

INC on February 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I’ve heard more than a few people here call for Lawrence v. Texas to be overturned.

sobincorporated on February 24, 2012 at 5:37 PM

For someone with the moniker Rational Thought, you’re awfully quick to cave to social pressure from irrational, extremist minority rights groups. “Just give the gays what they want guys I know it has repercussions but we can’t win this!”

BKennedy on February 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM

More than half of Americans support gay marriage, and it goes up in every poll. I don’t personally give a sh*t about gay marriage one way or the other, except to acknowledge that one cannot simultaneously be in favor of “limited government” and in favor of government deciding who does and does not get married. You either want government to be “as inconsequential in your life as possible” (to quote Rick Perry), or you do not. Being in favor of freedom means accepting that some people will use their freedom in ways you might not approve. If it isn’t hurting anyone, then the conservative position should be that it’s none of our business. That’s why they call it freedom.

Moreover, this is not the fight to have at this time. The GOP is fighting for nothing — NOTHING — except these dumb-ass social conservative issues that play really well with the Bible thumpers but piss everyone else off. Let’s get a conservative president. Let’s get a conservative Congress. Let’s get a conservative Supreme Court. And THEN let’s tackle these issues. But if we make the Republican platform this year all about birth control and gay marriage, we will NEVER have a conservative president, Congress, or High Court, and you all will be whining about a helluva lot more than you’re whining about now.

Rational Thought on February 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I’ve heard more than a few people here call for Lawrence v. Texas to be overturned.

sobincorporated on February 24, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Which is not incompatible with what INC posted. Lawrence v. Texas was a horrible ruling that built upon the terrible rulings of Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut. I have no use for sodomy laws, but that does not make them unconstitutional.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 5:41 PM

yeah @INC you can’t play the “christians are just nice people” if you hang out on Hotair very much. In fact quite a few of them would love for all the gays to disappear and never be seen again, so that they don’t have to worry about any theological conflicts with their religion.

Zekecorlain on February 24, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Which is not incompatible with what INC posted. Lawrence v. Texas was a horrible ruling that built upon the terrible rulings of Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut. I have no use for sodomy laws, but that does not make them unconstitutional.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 5:41 PM

The law in question in Lawrence:

Sec. 21.01. Definitions.

In this chapter:

(1) “Deviate sexual intercourse” means:

(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or

(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.

(2) “Sexual contact” means any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

(3) “Sexual intercourse” means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 373, ch. 168, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 203, ch. 96, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 21.06. Homosexual Conduct.

(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Notice that so-called “deviate sexual intercourse” was not illegal when committed by a straight couple; only by a gay couple. That’s flagrantly unconstitutional! And support for laws like these is incontrovertible proof that one has a desire to see homosexuals go to jail.

sobincorporated on February 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM

INC on February 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM

The left always thinks they win with this kind of legislative bullsh*t. Fine. So home-schoolers and faith-based schools can have a period each day when school is “out” and church is “in,” and they can teach their moral objections to homosexuality then. After, they can ring the bell and announce that “church” is over and “school” is back in session. There. Problem solved.

Rational Thought on February 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM

sobincorporated on February 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM

And? That doesn’t change my mind about the wrongness of Lawrence v. Texas.

NotCoach on February 24, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Critic2029 on February 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM

I think you’re slightly off course here. The Tenth Amendment has nothing to do with recognizing other states’ judgments and official documents. The part you are describing is the constitution text:

Article IV. Sect. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may, by general Laws, prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The DOMA purports to exempt marriage licenses from this clause. Since such a thing cannot be done without amending the constitution, it uses language that comes very close to the edge.

When reviewing this federal statute, the Supreme Court must choose an interpretation that does not violate the constitution if that can be reasonably done. In this case, it can be done if the law is read to mean that the manner in which this particular “official act” shall be given “full faith and credit” is by making it optional for recognition by other states.

If it were otherwise, one state could force every other state to abide by laws the other states never enacted. That would be an absurd reading of the clause so therefore it is incorrect. I realize that is what the rainbow mafia is using to force judges to give them favorable rulings, but all those judges are doing is showing their ignorance in the law.

By the way, unless Congress changes the definition of marriage to include qu eer pairings, no federal benefits will ever be provided to the other person in such pairings. As far as each state goes, a marriage that is not recognizable in another state is a marriage that means no more than a religious ceremony. That right (of religious ceremony) is inherent and is already not subject to government restriction.

This fake dispute is NOT about equal rights – it’s about raiding the government treasury for benefits. And the “marriages” already in existence are ultra vires. There is a secret trump card that makes same-sex marriage legally impossible. No, I’m not giving it up – I may need it when one of the mafia tries to adversely affect my life.

platypus on February 24, 2012 at 6:08 PM

I’m glad Newt tossed in his penchants for siding with Liberals at the end. Makes me 100% sure he’s the 4th of the GOPers left in the race.

kirkill on February 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Contraception and Gays. Way to get off topic. Stepped right into their trap…YET AGAIN.

Fools fall down the same cliff for the eleventieth time.

birdhurd on February 24, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I think it’s about time that unmarried heterosexual couples got together and started demanding equal rights.

Syzygy on February 24, 2012 at 6:18 PM

You know what’s ironic? Christians in the U.S. have no desire to see homosexuals go to jail.

INC on February 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I have met more than a few ‘Christians’ in the U.S. who have expressed a desire to see homosexuals burn in hell.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Too bad they can’t just skip the Ninth Circuit altogether. waste of time for them; they’ll lose; then the SCOTUS will overturn the Ninth. It’s pretty much SOP these days.

Tennman on February 24, 2012 at 7:01 PM

The entire legislation is unconstitutional since it violates the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 7:03 PM

California….9th Circuit…..say no more.

timberline on February 24, 2012 at 7:04 PM

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 6:22 PM

That would be wrong, then. First, we are told not to judge (Matthew 7:1-5) and second, God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through Him, would be saved. (John 3:17)

[emphasis mine]

Tennman on February 24, 2012 at 7:05 PM

(darn submit, hit too early)
STUFF!

sicoit on February 24, 2012 at 5:21 PM

It’s also disheartening when as you hit the “Submit” button, you notice that Spellchecker has one or two misspelled words underlined that you forgot to fix and shrink when you know the world will be reading your misspelled post and looking down their noses at you.

timberline on February 24, 2012 at 7:12 PM

it can be done if the law is read to mean that the manner in which this particular “official act” shall be given “full faith and credit” is by making it optional for recognition by other states. If it were otherwise, one state could force every other state to abide by laws the other states never enacted. That would be an absurd reading of the clause so therefore it is incorrect. I realize that is what the rainbow mafia is using to force judges to give them favorable rulings, but all those judges are doing is showing their ignorance in the law.

platypus on February 24, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Following the Constitution is not optional to the states. The states can’t just decide not to recognize “to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial proceedings of every other State.” They clearly have to.

And no, if it were otherwise one state could NOT force every other state to abide by laws of that state. A law is a legislative act, not a judicial proceeding.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 7:12 PM

How do tax breaks for married couples — or any of the many other legal benefits gay couples so assiduously seek — secure basic rights?

It actually goes to compensating parents for producing the next generation of citizens in a responsible way. You could work on the theory that because that benefits everyone, it is the proper place of the government to make that compensation.
Which is not to say that you don’t have a point.

Count to 10 on February 24, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I have met more than a few ‘Christians’ in the U.S. who have expressed a desire to see homosexuals burn in hell.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Did they desire that they burn, or did they just express a desire to be proven correct in that they would be burning?

Count to 10 on February 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Notice that so-called “deviate sexual intercourse” was not illegal when committed by a straight couple; only by a gay couple. That’s flagrantly unconstitutional! And support for laws like these is incontrovertible proof that one has a desire to see homosexuals go to jail.

sobincorporated on February 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM

You are wrong.. The law that was in issue regarding Lawrence v. Texas included heterosexual “deviant” behavior. And Texas took care of the law without having to involve other states. Their appeals courts said it was unconstitutional based on Texas’s constitution. There was no need to nullify other states rights.

Griswold was never about genveral privacy rights. If you think that I suggest you go back and read it. It was only regarding privacy rights between a married couple and their choice to reproduce(ya know the legal tradition and foundation of state marriage based on MANY legal cases). It didn’t even legalize contraception for everyone just married people. It was a later case that did that(I can’t think of the name) and it didn’t do it based on privacy rights. It said that based on the court finding rights for married couples that it couldn’t deny those same rights to single couples. It was the height of judicial activism.

States do get into the bedroom all the time. Prostitution, age of consent, and incest laws are state laws based on societal taboos and norm. Just like gay was taboo 20 years ago, those things may change as well.

melle1228 on February 24, 2012 at 7:18 PM

“We’re going to cut $100 Billion from this year’s budget … WRITE THAT DOWN!!!”

“This attack on religion WILL NOT STAND!!”

LOL – GOP … Play Hard, FAIL Hard.

HondaV65 on February 24, 2012 at 7:21 PM

States do get into the bedroom all the time.

melle1228 on February 24, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Doesn’t make it right.

HondaV65 on February 24, 2012 at 7:22 PM

The case that actually legalized contraception for all was Einstadt v. Baird..

melle1228 on February 24, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Doesn’t make it right.

HondaV65 on February 24, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Then vote out the legislature that votes on it. It is still a constitutional power of a state government to make those laws.

melle1228 on February 24, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Did they desire that they burn, or did they just express a desire to be proven correct in that they would be burning?

There was glee and hatred. Not quite Westboro-grade, but plenty ugly. Thankfully those sorts of public expressions are becoming much rarer.

zarathustra on February 24, 2012 at 7:40 PM

the problem with “gay marriage” advocacy is that the end game is not so-called marriage equality. It may be that for some, but for others it is a full on repeal of traditional morality and religious influence — nothing more, nothing less. The goal posts are moved steadily, year by year, asking first that “we just want to be left alone,” to “we just want to be able to have hospital visitation rights,” to “we just want civil unions,” to “we want marriage equality.” And simultaneously there is a full scale push in schools to first normalize homosexuality and then push for its’ acceptance, and then to shut down opinions to the contrary — all the while blaming the tragic suicide deaths of teens on “bullying” because someone says that gay is not okay. It doesn’t end. And it won’t end. You can play the appeasement game, but it will not work. And yes in the end families will face the possibility of abuse charges for taking their kids to church where homosexuality is condemned, or homesechooling them in the same fashion.

theblackcommenter on February 24, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Same principle applies as with illegal immigration: you cannot simultaneously have an unlimited welfare state AND allow any old person who wants benefits to come and sign up for them.

We could get the government out of defining “marriage” as soon as there’s no longer any such thing as a progressive income tax, welfare, medicare, social security, etc. As long as our grandchildren are obligated to bankroll these massive benefits, we get to say who is eligible for them and who isn’t.

joe_doufu on February 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Oh my goodness joe, you knocked this one right out of the park for a grand slam homerun.

THIS is why we need the government the hell out of marriage. The minute people started voting themselves benefits for their partnerships things were bound to go wrong. (just as ol’ Ben Franklin predicted)

MelonCollie on February 24, 2012 at 7:51 PM

theblackcommenter on February 24, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Nailed it!

Christian Conservative on February 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM

What concerns me is the day the state begins to tell churches they cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples.

This is their primary goal, attack religious organizations. You know that is coming.

Mirimichi on February 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM

The Obama administration says that Catholic institutions must provide contraception to employees. You don’t think they’re going to tell all denominations that they must perform same-sex marriage ceremonies?

I don’t have an equal-protection problem with distinguishing marriage from same-sex marriage. Marriage, the union of a man and a woman, has been a foundation for civilization from the beginning of time. It’s our highest and best relationship. It should be elevated above all others. It’s the relationship that sustains and perpetuates mankind.

Gays should take this issue up after they’ve established a track record of a few thousand years or so of stable, non-transient relationships and after the stop conducting themselves like porn stars in their parades.

BuckeyeSam on February 24, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Economy?

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Why would the House GOP leaders defend this? (Or are they the only ones that can?) It makes no sense … let some California group do it.

ZachV on February 24, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Why would the House GOP leaders defend this? (Or are they the only ones that can?) It makes no sense … let some California group do it.

ZachV on February 24, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Because they’re pandering.

Dante on February 25, 2012 at 9:08 AM