Sunday, January 19, 2014

Prophets of same-sex marriage

The dissenters in the original same-sex marriage case, Goodridge v. [Massachusetts] Department of Public Health, were prophets:

“There is no restriction on the right of any plaintiff to enter into marriage. Each is free to marry a willing partner of the opposite sex.” –Justice Francis X. Spina

Indeed there is no discrimination on the basis of gender. There is no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, either, as that is a made-up category.

“An orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is that mechanism.” –Justice Robert J. Cordy

Better than the mechanism of a literal nanny state, conjugal union arises out of the complementary sexual, biological natures of men and women.

“It is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences.” –Justice Martha B. Sosman

Such as the chaos we are witnessing today with the federal definition of marriage diverging from states’ definitions of marriage.

For example, the Los Angeles Times reports:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Friday that the federal government would recognize hundreds of same-sex marriages that took place in Utah over the past three weeks, two days after Utah announced it did not consider the marriages to be legal.

Holder’s announcement left some 1,300 couples who rushed to marry after a federal District Court ruling on Dec. 20 in complicated legal limbo, with their marriages deemed valid for federal tax purposes but not for state taxes.

“I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages,” Holder said in a videotaped statement. “These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds.”

A federal District Court judge had ruled the state ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional and refused to delay the implementation of his ruling while it was appealed, opening the courthouse door to surprised couples who had not expected such an opportunity anytime soon in a conservative state like Utah.

While the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stop the marriages while hearing the state’s appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court last week put a stop to them at least until the 10th Circuit rules. The one-paragraph order from the justices did not explain their reasoning.

The Obama administration wants as much chaos as possible in order to force the Supreme Court’s hand. Based on the Court’s reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas and United States v. Windsor, they will impose same-sex marriage on all 50 states. Democratic leaders will have plausible deniability, should they feel the need to exercise it to remain politically viable to their “bigoted” constituents.

No comments:

Post a Comment