The U.S. Supreme CourtToday, the Supreme Court will take up the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law signed by Bill Clinton that denied benefits and equal treatment to same-sex couples. This follows yesterday’s interesting, and at times heated, debate over Proposition 8 in the Hollingsworth case. I will be on MSNBC today discussing the case with NPR’s Here and Now at 12 and then Martin Bashir at 4 p.m.
While some of us have been cautioning people for weeks that this Court was more likely to look for a way to avoid a major decision and could avoid a decision entirely through standing, many were disappointed with the tenor of the questions yesterday. Members like Chief Justice John Roberts seemed openly peeved by people pushing him toward a decision on equality for homosexuals. As expected, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was the most provocative with questions like “We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?”
However, even Justice Anthony Kennedy, viewed as the key swing voter, expressed uncertainly about whether the trend toward equality would result in a magnificent end or go over “the cliff.” It was clear that the justices viewed this as a “new” question and had reservations about deciding it for the nation. Indeed, they looked like so many elderly drivers in Florida driving slowly on the highway with their turn signal on, looking desperately for an off-ramp.
That off-ramp could be standing since this case has significant problems on whether the proponents of the law have sufficient injury to demand relief before the Court. If dismissed on standing, that would also mean that the Ninth Circuit also lacked standing. That would leave the district court decision and same sex marriage would be restored in California. However, there would be no sweeping new protection secured in the case.
Another off-ramp was hinted at by Kennedy who openly wondering if the case was wrongly accepted. The Court can simply dismiss a case as premature and mistakingly granted. Many leaders on the Court like Earl Warren wanted to speak with a strong or a single voice on major issues. Absent such a consensus, some might prefer to toss the case rather than produce a fractured decision. It is clear that some justices remain undecided on the fundamental question, though most of us would not view this as a “new” question. The right to marry is not a new question. Nor is equality. Indeed, the gay rights movement is hardly new. Yet, this is an incrementalist Court that historically tries to avoid getting in front of the nation on divisive questions.
That brings us to DOMA and today’s argument. After the indecision expressed yesterday, it seems hard to believe that the justices would express certainty on the fundamental right today in the DOMA context. Many had hoped that the Court would simply find the law unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection and extend heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation. When Clinton signed this law, many condemned it as open discrimination. Indeed, it is frustrating for civil libertarians to see Clinton and Senators like Claire McCaskill come out expressing their rather belated conclusion that same-sex couples deserve equal treatment in marriage. When such decision requires more courage, they were no where to be found and, in Clinton’s case, openly worked against gay rights.
With even Kennedy expressing uncertainly yesterday, a ruling recognizing equality seems a bit more difficult today. Yet, a ruling upholding DOMA would be equally sweeping. This case also has a number of off-ramps. Standing in this case for the members of Congress is highly questionable. I represented Democratic and Republican members challenging the Libyan war and we were dismissed on standing grounds. That could be the result here, though it would be a bitter end if both landmark cases end in procedural dismissals.
Another intermediate resolution would be for the Court to strike down DOMA not only equality grounds but federalism grounds — avoiding the creation of a new fundamental protection for gays and lesbians. The Court could hold that Congress was interfering with a state question (the definition of marriage) by denying benefits to all same-sex couples (including those from states recognizing same-sex marriage). In so holding, the Court would not be holding that there is an equal protection for homosexuals but rather that this is a matter left to the states. That would still be a victory for gay rights but not the one most deserved from this case.
any sect or congregation will be free to accept or perform gay marriage or not depending on their own beliefs. no one is saying that any church must perform a same sex marriage. this only concerns the legal aspects of marriage, inheritance, end of life issues, tax purposes and whatnot.
the slapout alabama baptist church and bait shop won’t have to start performing same sex marriages. the only issue that may come up is if the church receives federal dollars for any reason.
go to church and hate anybody you wish, no one cares, but your church does not have the right to tell two consenting adults they cannot enter into a contract and seal it with a kiss.
deal with it
Tony,
“Marriage is a social construct of government”
Close, but no cigar. Marriage is a promise between two people like any contract. Contract enforcement is a role of government in society to prevent the use of self-help in case of breach. The rest of the paragraph I have no issue with.
I shouldn’t say “Taking care of themselves,” I retract that. I meant more like mentally capable of deciding for themselves, not under the care of a guardian.
Timmy says: Marriage by definition is male and female,
No it isn’t. Marriage is a social construct of government, there are 1100 laws or so that give specific rights only to married couples and those laws have nothing to do with procreation or religion. Your religious definition of “marriage” is immaterial in the face of the actual restrictions placed on unmarried couples. Gays that want gay marriage do not give a crap about your religion, they give a crap about their relationship being treated as equal under the law to other life partners.
Timmy says: Do we really want a nation that detracts itself from that?
Yes, we do. Marriage is not about mommies and daddies, and the world is not 100% about children. Adults have lives to live, and children grow into adults that have lives to live, and as independent adults they both deserve to find love as they define it, as long as they do no harm to others in the process. I will add “harm” is not done if you are repulsed or dismayed; if that were true, teaching Christianity to children would be illegal for being repulsive and dismaying to atheists. In fact just about everything would be illegal, including any form of sex, because no matter what topic you pick, somebody somewhere will find it repulsive or dismaying.
Timmy says: If we do then we must conclude that it won’t stop there. Slippery slopes are slippery for a reason.
False again, we do not have to conclude anything of the sort. It is impossible for any living entity except an adult human capable of taking care of themselves to consent to marriage because only an adult human capable of taking care of themselves is capable of understanding the abstract conception of what it means to be married. Animals cannot, children cannot.
Therefore, with the addition of homosexual marriage, all three possible gender matches are covered, male-male, male-female, female-female. There simply are no other combinations.
If by slippery slope you want to invoke polygamy and polygyny, I am not so certain they should be prohibited, but the simple solution is to limit marriage to two persons.
There is no slippery slope to slide down, it makes no sense to believe any human can marry an animal, no animal is capable of informed consent, because no animal other than Man has that level of abstract thought about their future lives. No adult can marry a child for the same reason, a child cannot give informed consent.
“Marriage by religious definition is male and female”
There. That’s more accurate.
Marriage by legal definition is a form of contract and the genders of the parties are irrelevant to that relationship and enforcing the benefits and obligation therein.
You can keep trying to use your religious definition all you want, Timmeh, but in the end you will not be able to enforce it as it conflicts with both the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Also, you don’t speak for all Christians. You think you do, sure. But you don’t. As for acceptance, your acceptance is not required. Your brand of Christians or any other religious denomination don’t have final say on our laws. This isn’t a theocracy no matter how much that thought gives you stiffy.
Tony C.
I agree that we should not deny one their free will even if we don’t approve of what they will do. The problem here is the redefining marriage. Marriage by definition is male and female, mommies and daddies. Do we really want a nation that detracts itself from that? If we do then we must conclude that it won’t stop there. Slippery slopes are slippery for a reason.
Timmy: I did answer that question, I think if you assume the fiction is true, you must assume the fictional punishment is true, so fictionally they burn in hell.
That doesn’t persuade anybody that understands the Bible is fiction, we don’t care. On “Being Human,” the fictional vampires get very sick if they drink the blood of the fictional werewolves. Oh no, what are we to do… That certainly does not have any impact on the real world and real people.
As for your fictional God, you do not understand what Love is. You cannot love somebody and condemn them to burn in hell for eternity if they fail to “choose” of their own free will what you demand. That isn’t love, that isn’t a choice, it is coercion and blackmail, it is nothing but slavery, and slavery of the mind, not just the body.
Here is the question you should answer: Assume the Bible is false and there is no God except for a fiction invented by jealous control freaks to force others to do their bidding. Then where does that put YOU for condemning people to live as second-class citizens, where does that put YOU for denying people the happiness they freely choose without harming anybody else, people that will never be judged by anybody except for small minded bigoted jerks like you?
It isn’t UP to you to protect me or anybody else from God’s judgment, by force or otherwise. If you truly believe God gave man the free will to sin for a reason, then it is not up to YOU to deny them the free will God gave them, which is what you are doing if you try to pass laws that prevent them from sinning. God gave them permission to reject Him and sin, who are you to stand between them and God? You have no right, if you believe in God, you should stand aside and let God hold them accountable. It is not your job to play God.
Gene H.
Jesus said: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? ( Matthew19:4-5)
This is why we Christians can’t and will never accept Gay Marriage.
Tony C.
The problem with all of your statements on Christ is that he was speaking directly to the Pharisees (Jews). The law was given to the Jews and it was the Jews whom he was speaking to. However, the new covenant is Jesus dying on the cross and being resurrected the third day for all mankind. Paul said “For by Grace ye have been saved….” I am the worst of all sinners but in Christ I have been redeemed. I do not hate anyone. I do however “hate” what people do. That is what you blindly fail to see. You would rather avoid facts and live in your theoretical world which is your right! I do see you refused to answer my question and rather would attack me. Homosexuality is mentioned in BOTH Old and New Testaments. Romans and Revelation in the New. Here is again the question you chose to attack rather than answer:
Assume that the Bible is in fact true, then where do you believe that puts all who are Gay [in] respect to judgement from a Holy God?
Peeps Rally – Freedom to Marry
Peeps are getting in on the marriage equality debate! This diorama depicts the actual Freedom to Marry Rally held at the State Capitol Rotunda in St. Paul, Minnesota on Feb. 14, 2013.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/2013-peeps-diorama-contest-entries-gallery-1.1302749?pmSlide=3
The Father,
I believe what you mean was said by the apostle John:
“I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together”
Cheeses.
Jesus:
That whole Trinity thing confuses Me (You) as well.
I is You and You is Me. All together We violate the law of identity. I can be You as well as Me.
Max-1,
I still don’t get this “Christian” thing. My last name wasn’t “Christ.” Closest thing I had to a surname was “ben Nazareth.” I use “Jesus,” but I’m really not Latino. “Yeshua” would be more like it.
And our only authorized book was Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, in which we divinely inspired his quill to critique the Bronze-Age scribblings of a bunch of hominids who, in the words of our prophet Lewis Black, were “a few hairs short of being baboons.” Read that, if you want to know what’s really going on. Paine’s one of the few Floundering Fathers who did. What was that whole slavery thing about, anyway? Paine did his own damned work.
I didn’t strut around, bragging about how pure or faithful or religious I was.
I never authorized any religion. The opposite, in fact. It’s been a couple thousand years, now. Give it a rest, for Christ’s sake.
Speaking of these “Christians,” Scalia will be immersed up to the top of his head in molten lead, standing on the shoulders of Jerry Falwell, for all eternity. Every thousand years, they’ll trade places. Scalia did give us the abomination George Bush, after all. Timmy will be posted there, to shout “Get over it, Scalia!” once per minute.
Oh, and get thee behind me, Timmy.
There are Christians and there are charlatans, and it is unfortunate when the twain shall meet.
Jesus,
There are those “”christians” who would rather Judge than follow you…
… Can they still wear their faith with pride, perhaps making their cloak longer just to show it off that bit more?
TheFather, who is actually me, who sent himself (myself) down to be murdered by the humans he (I) created to do exactly that, in expiation for a quibbling offense which I (he) designed them to commit (hell, this still confuses me; what the hell were we thinking?):
Hate speech deserves harsh remedies.
I (you) revel in punishing the very least of your (my) brethren (Timmy), whom you (I) created to do exactly as he’s doing, as a warning to others.
It is indeed fitting punishment to send Satan down in human(?) form (Timmy), to suffer the consequences of his evil.
I (you) shall ensure him a long, long, ugly life, at the end of which, he’ll be begging to be sent back to hell.
To all of your (my) children:
I’ve (TheFather’s) sent Satan (Timmy) to you as a sacrificial animal, to torment in revenge for all the evil Timmy’s (Satan’s) done to you. Do you appreciate the irony, that Timmy (Satan) spews venom in TheFather’s (My) name?
Enjoy, and Happy Estrus!
Timmy says: The Bible is true.
No it isn’t, and saying it or believing it does not make it so.
Timmy says: What you do not mention is that the law was given to the Jews.
Christ was a Jew, do you deny that?
We Gentiles are not under the law but rather Grace.
Read your Bible, Christ explicitly endorses the old testament law, every jot and tittle. Matthew 5:18, the words of Christ: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. My emphasis added.
Timmy says: This topic is on Gay marriage. For Christians, we must follow what the Bible teaches on the subject.
The Bible also teaches this, in Numbers 15:38 (The Old Testament, but so are ALL the passages on homosexuality): These are the words of God: Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them tassels in the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the tassel of the corners a thread of blue:
Are you following that direct order from the word of God, Timmy?
Timmy says: You and all alike have to accept that whether you agree or not just like we have to accept your beliefs even if we do not agree.
No, we don’t have to accept anything, we can reject your silly infantile beliefs in their entirety.
Timmy says: Our disagreement though will not change what the Bible teaches.
Nor will it change the fact that you do not follow the Bible unless it pleases you to do so. Do you have tassels with a blue thread on the corners of your clothing? Do you stone to death those that work on the Sabbath? There is no shortage of such people, including me, I am working today on Easter Sunday.
Timmy says: I ask: Assume that the Bible is in fact true, then where do you believe that puts all who are Gay [in] respect to judgement from a Holy God?
If I assumed the fictional Bible was true then on this point of Gay Marriage I assume the fictional punishment will fall upon you far more heavily than it falls upon them, because you have the desire to BE God, to judge and control others and force them to your will, and they are in pursuit of personal happiness and love.
Timmy says: Happy Easter for my savior is ALIVE!
To the extent that an entirely fictional construct can be “alive,” sure. Christ never existed, his story is cobbled together from old Indian and “solar myth” stories told as parables for the last 6000 years; the purpose of those was to teach children, when story-telling was the primary means of doing so, and they were refined by a hundred generations to be dramatic and memorable fiction so the children would be engaged and remember; that the water bearer brings the rains, that the sign of the Ram means the goats will be birthing soon. The twelve apostles match the twelve constellations; and in the end of the solar myth the sun god is betrayed by the character representing the final constellation, and nailed to the northern Cross constellation on the Winter solstice, between the two stars known to the ancient Indians as “the two Thieves.” When he leaves the Cross after three days he is reborn (the days start to get longer).
I do watch science fiction, Timmy, I can suspend my disbelief and process the rules within a fictional construct. Good science fiction is internally consistent, bad science fiction is not. The same holds for fictional books and movies. The same holds for your fiction, but it is very BAD fiction, because it contradicts its own rules so often, there is no telling what it is supposed to mean.
If you want to assume the Bible is true, I suggest you read it first. I have. I don’t think you have.
Son, isnt that a little harsh?
Jesus has spoken so the matter is settled now.