![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Basically, at issue in this case, is whether or not a couple, legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage (god I'm so sick of having to use qualifiers and such for this topic) is constitutionally entitled to have their marriage recognized by other States, that do not support same-sex marriage and whether they are entitled to Federal Benefits.
First of all, I have a problem with a brief that is supposed to defend an act of Congress stating the following: other states have reaffirmed the traditional understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, see VARNUM 763 N.W. 2d, 878 - an understanding held as a matter of profound moral and religious conviction by many of their citizens. KEEP YOUR FUCKING RELIGION OUT OF OUR COURTS.Calms down and puts back on lawyer hat. This type of statement has no business in this brief.
While I abhor DOMA with every fiber of my being, all I'm doing here is reading the DOJ's brief and putting my spin on things like so many others already have, and I have to say that the standing arguments that were presented in the brief are sound. It kills me but I think that until marriage (ALL MARRIAGE, WHETHER BETWEEN, MAN/WOMAN, SAME-SEX, ALL COLORS/RELIGIONS/ETHNICITY/ETC) is found to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, all these types of cases are destined for failure. It's what I've been saying all along. sighs. I also think there were jurisdictional issues, both subject matter and venue, but those can get complex so let's leave it at that.
By restricting marriage this way, it allows Congress to use it's powers under the Full, Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution to leave things up to the states. Yes, this is the same clause that would be used to enforce all states to recognize same-sex marriages, if it were found to be a fundamental right. You see, marriage shouldn't be about "public policy" - it's a RIGHT that should be bestowed on every citizen of this country. Are there public policy reasons to restrict marriage? Of course, the age of the participants comes to mind immediately as does incestuous relationships - but these are policies that can be applied to everyone, regardless of their sexuality, without using them to infringe on anyone's right to marry.
I understand that race is a protected class and thus all laws based on race are subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. I also know that sexuality is not a protected class and that race is and that applying strict scrutiny in LOVING V. VA was what won that case. However, I cannot, in my mind, figure out how DOMA meets the rational basis test. What is the rational relation? What is the legitimate state interest? Is it seriously to protect religious beliefs because that's bullshit (yes, I'm digressing a bit...bite me). I just don't understand how people cannot see that this is the same thing. This is where ignorance and hate come into play.
So basically what it boils down to is that while the Supreme Court has determined that one has a fundamental right to marry, it's limited to the those who meet the definition under DOMA, unless you belong to a protected class. Know what I say: grow up people, it's coming whether you like it or not. You same people didn't want the Lovings to marry, well, you lost that one too and eventually you'll lose this one because you're wrong. Someone shouldn't have to be a member of a protected class to have their government recognize them equally.
Finally, I'll say this, I don't practice this type of Constitutional Law everyday and I understand these are complicated issues with lots of history. However, I also know what this Country stands for and it's not the kind of crap that was stated in this brief. It's time for our President, my President, to stand firm on something. Sure he has to allow the DOJ to defend congressional laws, but HE doesn't have to like it and he's still in charge, so the brief didn't have to ramble on as it did, IMO. If you're listening Mr. President, please, stop trying to appease everyone, it's time to stop hoping and start doing!
First of all, I have a problem with a brief that is supposed to defend an act of Congress stating the following: other states have reaffirmed the traditional understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, see VARNUM 763 N.W. 2d, 878 - an understanding held as a matter of profound moral and religious conviction by many of their citizens. KEEP YOUR FUCKING RELIGION OUT OF OUR COURTS.
While I abhor DOMA with every fiber of my being, all I'm doing here is reading the DOJ's brief and putting my spin on things like so many others already have, and I have to say that the standing arguments that were presented in the brief are sound. It kills me but I think that until marriage (ALL MARRIAGE, WHETHER BETWEEN, MAN/WOMAN, SAME-SEX, ALL COLORS/RELIGIONS/ETHNICITY/ETC) is found to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, all these types of cases are destined for failure. It's what I've been saying all along. sighs. I also think there were jurisdictional issues, both subject matter and venue, but those can get complex so let's leave it at that.
By restricting marriage this way, it allows Congress to use it's powers under the Full, Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution to leave things up to the states. Yes, this is the same clause that would be used to enforce all states to recognize same-sex marriages, if it were found to be a fundamental right. You see, marriage shouldn't be about "public policy" - it's a RIGHT that should be bestowed on every citizen of this country. Are there public policy reasons to restrict marriage? Of course, the age of the participants comes to mind immediately as does incestuous relationships - but these are policies that can be applied to everyone, regardless of their sexuality, without using them to infringe on anyone's right to marry.
I understand that race is a protected class and thus all laws based on race are subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. I also know that sexuality is not a protected class and that race is and that applying strict scrutiny in LOVING V. VA was what won that case. However, I cannot, in my mind, figure out how DOMA meets the rational basis test. What is the rational relation? What is the legitimate state interest? Is it seriously to protect religious beliefs because that's bullshit (yes, I'm digressing a bit...bite me). I just don't understand how people cannot see that this is the same thing. This is where ignorance and hate come into play.
So basically what it boils down to is that while the Supreme Court has determined that one has a fundamental right to marry, it's limited to the those who meet the definition under DOMA, unless you belong to a protected class. Know what I say: grow up people, it's coming whether you like it or not. You same people didn't want the Lovings to marry, well, you lost that one too and eventually you'll lose this one because you're wrong. Someone shouldn't have to be a member of a protected class to have their government recognize them equally.
Finally, I'll say this, I don't practice this type of Constitutional Law everyday and I understand these are complicated issues with lots of history. However, I also know what this Country stands for and it's not the kind of crap that was stated in this brief. It's time for our President, my President, to stand firm on something. Sure he has to allow the DOJ to defend congressional laws, but HE doesn't have to like it and he's still in charge, so the brief didn't have to ramble on as it did, IMO. If you're listening Mr. President, please, stop trying to appease everyone, it's time to stop hoping and start doing!
Current Mood: 
contemplative
contemplative20 Cynics | Cynical Reply
indescribable