Federal District Judge Joseph Tauro, the last active status Nixon appointee, made two related related rulings relevant to Massachusetts' judicial-fiat gay "marriage". In Gill vs. Office of Personnel Management Tauro found that the third section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violated equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the second case, Massachusetts vs. Health and Human Services Tauro argues that the federal government violated states rights, i.e., the Tenth Amendment.
A few relevant points. First, Barack Obama opposed DOMA as a state senate candidate in 1996, and Nancy Pelosi and he have paid lip service to repealing DOMA. The question is whether the Justice Department will appeal and if so, given the fact Obama is sympathetic to the ruling, whether they'll simply make a half-hearted attempt.
I don't think Obama or Pelosi want to add DOMA to their bleak fall election picture. They read the fact that even states like California and Maine where prospects for success were highest have come down on the side of traditional marriage, and Arizona flipped in favor of the same. Pro-traditional marriage forces have won a long string of state ballot initiatives.
Thus, the Justice Department will defend the bill, knowing the case will end up in the Supreme Court. I expect the Defense of Marriage Act will ultimately be upheld. But the third point below applies if the decision is upheld.
Second, we conservatives (as Charles Krauthammer on FNC Special Report pointed out) particularly like the fact that the judge wanted to raise the Tenth Amendment issue, if the US court system actually acknowledges there's a balance of power between the federal government and the states. This is a point we are pointedly raising for the Obama health care deformation act. So we may be willing to sacrifice a pawn to checkmate progressives on health care. The good news is even if we lose the pawn, we'll get it back via the next point.
Third, a number of conservatives, including myself, have opposed a Federal Marriage Amendment, precisely for the reason we did not believe that DOMA would be overturned. I will actively support a Federal Marriage Amendment, and I believe it will be readily adopted.
Now let's briefly address the judge's untenable decisions. It is true that states generally have had the power to establish or modify policies involving incidental characteristics of eligibility, e.g., ages or any ancestral connection of the man or woman. However, the intergender characteristic of marriage is intrinsic; it's intrinsic because of the primary function of procreation within the institution of marriage and the encompassing concept of family.
The judge, like many progressives, assumes what is to be proved--that the concept of natural (intergender) marriage is itself arbitrary and intentionally discriminatory. Let's get a few things straight:
First, the intergender nature of marriage has persisted through thousands of years of civilized existence, across religions and cultures. Gay relationships have also existed for thousands of years without a comparable institution. What is arbitrary is a one-vote judicial activist majority overturning a 400-year history of traditional marriage in the State of Massachusetts; that is a judicial abuse of power which has not even been validated by the people of Massachusetts.
Second, the primary function of DOMA was not to arbitrarily define marriage; IN FACT, ALL 50 STATES IN 1996 HAD ESTABLISHED A TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE--definitions that spanned the history of their statehood. So saying that the federal government "imposed" traditional definition of marriage is patently absurd; it simply recognized what existed and was in common across all the states. DOMA did NOT prohibit states' rights in changing the definition of marriage, which is something gay activists are conveniently ignoring; what it did do is ensure that a state that arbitrarily redefined marriage could not essentially impose its idiosyncratic definition of marriage on other states, undermining THEIR definition of marriage.
Finally, the fact of the matter is that the federal definition of marriage, based on intrinsic factors, had existed prior to 1996. For example, the United States would not recognize the state of Utah into the union if it continued to sanction polygamous marriages. This explicitly attests to the one-man/one-woman de facto federal definition of marriage standard.
Now what the judge does goes beyond these principles. The issue is whether gay "spouses" are entitled to benefits to which one can attribute a certain cost--e.g., survivor benefits. Whatever these amounts are means that American taxpayers, including myself, would be forced to subsidize relationships we do not regard as morally acceptable and which are, by the very nature of sex, intrinsically unsustainable. I also don't approve of heterosexual partners living together outside the institution of marriage; I don't feel that I should have to subsidize their relationship. If gay or straight domestic partners want to live together, fine--but they are not entitled to benefits for legally sanctioned relationships. To allow indiscriminate equalization of benefits undermines the traditional institution of marriage and arbitrarily increases the costs of government.
Even more to the point, states could arbitrarily change the definitions of marriage to maximize federal payouts to the state, by expanding the number of eligible couples. In essence, federal laws would be undermined by unilateral, imposed state actions. The whole point the judge is conveniently ignoring is that Massachusetts and related parties are "changing the rules" after the fact; you cannot arbitrarily give gays in relationships in one state benefits they don't have in another state. Activists realize this, because they ultimately want to use the federal courts to veto state definitions of traditional marriage on equal protection grounds. So the judge is looking at different type relationships within states, but not at the same type relationships across states. I would argue that equal protection requires no special gay benefits in Massachusetts.
If the federal government wants to subsidize alternative lifestyles in addition to traditional marriage, Congress should pass/amend relevant legislation directly. This should not be arbitrarily imposed by some back door approach of some unaccountable judicial activist judge.
NASA and the Self-Esteem of Muslim Countries: Ideology Run Amuck
It's not just that Barack Obama fundamentally misconceives diplomatic relations as little more than interpersonal dynamics on a more global level, but competition--which he thinks is a good idea for increasing subsidies to green energy causes--is not such a great idea when he talks about the space race: no, we don't need competition, we need collaboration. Winners and losers? Heaven forbid; the poor losers will be doomed to a bleak existence. Why, let's give EVERYBODY a trophy; let's give the fat boy a 50 meter starting point on the 100 meter dash. That senior who can't read will be traumatized for life if he doesn't graduate with the rest of his class. It's not fair that we have 1 valedictorian; let's have 15. And while we're at it, why are we limiting ourselves to ONE Nobel Prize in economics or a particular science? What about the thousands of economists or scientists whom will never be honored with a Nobel Prize? They cannot live with the idea of completing their career without a Nobel Prize.
The next thing you know, Obama will try to establish an international global Big Brother space program. Okay, China, you mentor Yemen; Russia, you take Vietnam. Can we please have a coherent program that doesn't seem like the ludicrous extrapolation of every clichéd NEA idea that has been tried and found wanting over the past 40 years?
In what universe is Obama operating? Since when is Muslim outreach program a priority of NASA Chief Charles Bolden? Bolden needs to focus on science, not public relations with the Muslim world. The Islamic world within a few centuries yielded outstanding, state-of-the-art architecture and universities; Muslims don't need some condescending lecture from a clueless American President, whose idea of managing NASA is to hire ultra-expensive Russian taxicabs into space.
Political Cartoon
Dana Summers points out the flagrant hypocrisy of the Mexican president and governors. I haven't previously commented on the Mexican politicians' essentially echoing the sham charges made by American progressives against the Arizona Immigration Law. The Obama Administration's unlawful attempts to ignore American laws it disagrees with on ideological grounds, e.g., its shameless disregard for bondholder precedence over Obama crony labor union interests during the auto bankruptcies, are misleadingly rationalized; under a Democratic President and/or Congress which will have added $3T to the national debt at the end of this fiscal year (i.e., September 30), the administration is claiming that proper enforcement of immigration laws diverts resources from terrorists, never mind the well-known fact that the drug cartel coyotes are willing to transport non-Latinos for a premium fee. Declining crime rates in Arizona, used to justify the status quo, in part reflect improved border protection over the past 5 years (although criminal elements learn to exploit vulnerabilities in modified enforcement policy), migration of unauthorized visitors to other parts of the country and reduced employment prospects in a tougher economy; what progressives fail to acknowledge in dealing with an unsatisfactory border protection reality is that they are referencing relative vs. absolute criteria (i.e., Arizona claims that the existing crime rates should be lower than the status quo and would be if there had as many boots on the ground as originally requested, if border fences had been completed, etc.) and qualitative differences in the nature of crimes and criminal activity, e.g., changing costs and nature of businesses engaged in the transport of illegals.
I haven't commented on the current kerfuffle, where the hypocritical northern Mexican border state governors have decided, once again, to copy the lead of American progressives engaging in boycotts of Arizona in the aftermath of the Arizona Immigration Law by refusing to attend the September meeting scheduled in Phoenix; Governor Brewer (R-AZ) responded to the Mexican ultimatum and interference in Arizona's internal affairs by canceling the meeting. Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Richardson (D-NM), probably looking to book the gig locally at Arizona's expense, have publicly balked at the cancellation; no doubt there's much to be gained from a meeting that the 6 Mexican governors were willing boycott for the purpose of domestic political posturing. For shame, Governors! Just April 2009, all 4 incumbent border state governors were pressing the Congress for more money and troops to deal with an escalating border drug smuggling problem.
Quote of the Day
You have to know how to accept rejection and reject acceptance.
Ray Bradbury
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1989
Chicago, "Look Away"
Debbie Gibson, "Lost in Your Eyes"
Bad English, "When I See You Smile"
Madonna, "Like a Prayer" favorite Madonna song, not the video
Roxette, "Listen to Your Heart"
