 |
 |
Pro-family activism that makes a difference! | ||||
Analysis of July 8 Defense of Marriage (DOMA) ruling
POSTED: July 21, 2010
|
The ruling was immediately portrayed in the mainstream press as a "civil rights" victory. |
|
The ruling by liberal Judge Joseph L. Tauro was the result of a strategic effort by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and the publicly subsidized homosexual law group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). Each of them concurrently filed a separate lawsuit narrowly targeting specific sections of the DOMA law.
GLAD's arguments before Tauro took place in May, and MassResistance covered it, including an exclusive video of their press conference where they outlined their positions.
A strategic attack to dismantle the statute
Over the last several years 31 states have voted on the "gay marriage" issue. The homosexual movement has been unable to win a single one. So they went back to their tried-and-true approach: Getting activist judges to rule in their favor and strike down laws.
It's evident that this was very carefully planned by GLAD and the Massachusetts Attorney General. As part of their narrow strategy, they did not target the part of the bill regarding the rights of states not to recognize other states' same-sex "marriages." They targeted the sections of the DOMA law that deal with federal benefits and participation in federal programs, and the recognition of marriages in general by the federal government.
Coakley's lawsuit focused on highlighting the rights of states to define marriage, primarily using US Constitution's Tenth Amendment. GLAD's suit focused on the "equal protection" clause of the US Constitution. For the time being at least, everything fell into place for the sexual radicals. Judge Tauro agreed with virtually every point brought up by both of them.
The liberal Boston First District Federal Court -- which had previously issued the infamous David Parker ruling declaring that schools had the "right" and "obligation" to teach homosexuality to elementary school children (and that parents had no right to opt out) -- was the perfect venue for GLAD and Martha Coakley.
Limp defense by Obama Justice Dept
They were helped greatly by the fact that the Obama Justice Department made a pathetically weak effort to defend the law in court. Obama has said that he personally supports the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act because it's "discriminatory." In particular, it was pretty clear that they had no intention to bring up arguments that would anger the homosexual movement.
2. How the DOMA ruling affects you.
In a very real sense, this ruling is the homosexual movement's next step in using the force of law to force homosexuality into society nationwide, and to make the taxpayers subsidize it.
Technically, it only affects Massachusetts at this time, and it only includes homosexual "marriages" from Massachusetts. But this is seen as the takeoff point for pushing it into other states with further lawsuits.
Basically, it does the following:
- The ruling says that the federal government (funded by taxpayers in all 50 states) must include homosexual "marriages" in all federal benefits. This includes Social Security, federal pensions, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's benefits, and everything else involving marriage, including filing jointly on Federal income taxes.
- It also includes access to federal programs and other things run or controlled by the federal government, such as housing, federal loans, passports, health insurance, military housing, burial in military cemeteries, etc. Thus, the federal government must recognize homosexual behavior as equal to regular marriage throughout the range of all its activities.
- But even more frightening: Given the wording of the decision it also likely extends to any activities that receive federal funding, such as state programs, college programs, and virtually anything else involving federal money or federal contracts.
This federal court ruling opens the doors for the homosexual movement to start lawsuits in other states and for those courts to use this decision as the legal basis for others. And for the time being, the federal government must change its whole range of operations to recognize those homosexual "marriages".
What happens from here? Will it be appealed?
The Justice Department has 60 days to appeal the ruling. They are currently "reviewing the decision." And the Obama White House isn't commenting on it.
But the feeling among legal experts who've been interviewed in the media is that the Justice Department will appeal it, if only for public-relations reasons. It's such a contentious issue that it would not look good for them not to. But when it comes to actually fighting, you can count on another limp and uninspired performance by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's legal team.
Interestingly, liberal commentators have tried to downplay the importance of the ruling, saying that it doesn't have binding powers on same-sex "marriages" outside of Massachusetts until a higher federal court rules, or until courts in other states rule similarly. That is technically true. But the wheels are definitely in motion to use this case as leverage to make all of that that happen. A loss by the Justice Department on appeal will only accelerate that (another reason for Obama to appeal it).
In any case, it's a certainty that you will start to see lawsuits in states around the country, starting with the other states where homosexual "marriage" is "legal", using this ruling as its legal basis. The sexual radicals had to start somewhere, and Massachusetts was the logical and probably easiest place to start. Given the nature of our judicial system, they will find other activist judges to rule in their favor without too much trouble.
3. The DOMA ruling -- full of absurd legal reasoning by an activist judge.
It's maddening and depressing to read the two DOMA rulings by Federal District Judge Joseph L. Tauro. He appears to have unquestioningly bought into the sexual radical agenda.
Tauro's decision on the Martha Coakley lawsuit (7/9/10)
Tauro's decision on the GLAD lawsuit (7/9/10)
But it goes deeper than that. To justify his decision Judge Tauro presents legal arguments and reasoning that are twisted and simply absurd, or at best far-fetched. One wonders how a federal judge even has the nerve to even sign his name to them.
Some of the major problems that jump right out are:
- Definition of marriage. Tauro writes that "the passage of DOMA marks the first time that the federal government has ever attempted to legislatively mandate a uniform federal definition of marriage -- or any other core concept of domestic relations, for that matter." That's not true. The federal government banned polygamy in the 1800s and in doing so defined marriage as one man and one woman. But unbelievably, Tauro completely ignores that.
- Discrimination. Tauro says that the government is practicing "discrimination against its own citizens." Well, that's true, but Tauro knows perfectly well that laws are designed to do that all the time. Laws discriminate against heroin users, pornographers, alcoholics, gamblers, and many other groups of citizens. If people engage in an activity that society finds destructive, it has every right to discriminate against that behavior.
- Equal protection clause. Tauro claims that under DOMA homosexual couples are being denied "equal protection under the law" as mandated in the US Constitution. That's not true at all. DOMA treats all people equally (unlike, say, affirmative action laws). Under DOMA all people who marry as man and woman are recognized by the government -- it doesn't say that some people are and others aren't. (Any man can marry one woman, and any woman can marry one man.) Tauro may not like the law, but he can't logically claim that it doesn't apply to all people equally. Of course, this is one of the homosexual movement's most vigerous talking points but it still doesn't fool people.
- Tenth Amendment. Tauro claims that the federal constitution's 10th Amendment is being violated -- specifically, the rights of states to make their own marriage laws. States can and always have made all kinds of laws regarding marriage -- minimum age, degree of blood relationship, medical tests, conditions for divorce, etc, and in the past, some states even banned interracial marriages. But none of that radically changes the definition of the word "marriage" and what constitutes that relationship. If a state invents a new relationship and decides to call it a "marriage" (for example, with polygamy or two people of the same sex, or whatever other relationship they conjure up) they can't expect to force other citizens around the country, or the federal government, to change their own dictionary definition of marriage to conform to that. Probably the best solution is to just call it a different name.
(Another way to look at it: Under the 10th Amendment, "the people's" rights are also mentioned. No state has ever instituted same-sex "marriage" through the will of the people. The radicals have always found a way to circumvent this fact, either through courts or a legislature co-opted by well-funded special interests.)
- Rational basis. Finally, as happened in the Goodridge decision that forced same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts, Tauro dredged up the "rational basis" argument. He declares there is no rational basis for traditional marriage to be defined as it is, therefore the court has the authority to strike it down. But this is completely subjective and absurd. What's "rational" to one person may be "irrational" to someone else. But more important, even though courts have been using it for years this concept has no basis in constitutional law and is thus extremely offensive and arrogant. It's the job of legislatures to decide if a law is "rational". It's the duty of judges only to decide if it is "legal".
We could go on and on throughout the 75 pages of Tauro's two written decisions. Suffice it to say that it would not stand up to any kind of normal scrutiny. He should be deeply ashamed of himself.
4. MassResistance responds to DOMA ruling on CNN, local TV & talk radio with immediate - and uncompromising - reaction
As you can imagine, reaction to the ruling was pretty swift.
Press conference by Mass. AG Martha Coakley
Within hours of the ruling Attorney General Martha Coakley called a press conference at her downtown Boston office. The major Boston media was invited to hear her comments on the victory. MassResistance also showed up!
ABOVE: Media invited to AG's office for DOMA press conference. |
|
At the press conference, Coakley talked about how the DOMA law "has no purpose but to discriminate" and because of that the federal government was forced to use a "restrictive definition of marriage." Thus, she concluded, this is "a victory for Massachusetts and a victory for Civil Rights." Needless to say, none of the questions from the mainstream press challenged any of those assumptions.
AG Martha Coakley's press release on the DOMA ruling
MassResistance reacts on CNN, talk radio, etc
But right after the press conference, TV crews interviewed Brian Camenker of MassResistance for comment. One of those clips was used by CNN in their national spot. (Of course, they didn't necessarily use the comments we would have preferred, but it still made our point.) Later that evening, National Public Radio us called us for a quick comment.
MassResistance on CNN:
MassResistance on New England Cable News:
MassResistance on WBZ radio's "Nightside" talk show,
debating host & callers:
Radio debate. Brian Camenker of MassResistance was an hour-long guest on the WBZ radio talk show "Nightside" which reaches 38 states each evening.
It was originally set up for us to debate with GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) on the DOMA ruling, but GLAD declined to participate. (GLAD doesn't like debates where they actually get challenged, we've noticed!) But the talk radio host that night was a pro-gay marriage liberal, and the callers were about evenly split. It was very contentions evening to say the least. But we didn't back down at all. The audience definitely heard points of view they probably hadn't heard before. We think you'll enjoy listening to this radio show.
| Top |