Friday, January 31, 2014

Apparently the NOMers do not know the history of the term "state's rights"

The latest from National Organization for Marriage is titled “State's Rights and the Defense of Marriage.” Why is NOM using a loaded term (state's rights) that was used to oppose desegregation in Dixie? Are they really that dumb? I won't answer that question but before I go further, here is what Justice Kennedy included in the majority opinion in United States v. Windsor:
In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).
Yet NOM persists with fiction:
The battle to defend marriage, and the faith communities that sustain it, is increasingly coming down to one’s view of the Constitution and particularly what the Founding Fathers intended as the balance between state’s rights and the powers of the federal government.  Activist judges and an overreaching Obama administration continue to attempt to curtail the right of states to define marriage as they see fit.
Ugh! Have any of these people even heard of Loving v. Virginia? Have they bothered to actually read the opinion in Windsor? It's not all that complicated. States can define marriage as they choose providing that it does not interfere with anyone's constitutional rights.

Increasingly, federal judges are finding that state marriage bans do, in fact, deny equal protection to gay couples. In Loving the Court also found that marriage to the person of one's choice is a basic civil right. These are not “activist judges” — which simply means that you disagree with their ruling. Judge Shelby, in Utah, is a Mormon and a Republican. He was hand picked by Senator Orin Hatch with the endorsement of Senator Lee. He made a decision based upon the law (imagine that). Aside from NOM's demagoguery they love playing the victim. They continue:
However, Jennifer Hickey of Newsmax wrote yesterday reminding each of us that protection of state’s rights continues to gain supporters in the US House of Representatives.  She reports on Congressman Weber’s (R-TX) “State Marriage Defense Act” and the growing number of co-sponsors the bill has.

Congressman Weber introduced the bill so that, If state law recognizes two people as married, federal law will recognize them as married; if state law does not recognize them as married, federal law will not recognize them as married.
The growing number of cosponsors is 38 which is less than 9%of the House. Rep. Randy Weber (a Tea Party fruitcake) owns a small company that installs air conditioners (seriously). Even if his bill gets out of committee (which is doubtful) it is pointless. It has no effect on the federal courts finding that equal marriage bans are unconstitutional. President Obama is certainly not going to sign this into law.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.