Boston Massacre of Marriage
Four hundred twenty-seven. That’s how many members of Congress voted to pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. One. The number of activist judges it took to strike the law down.
Yesterday, a U.S. District Court did its best to preserve Massachusetts’s reputation as the most liberal state in America on marriage. In Boston, a federal judge used his gavel to shatter the one law preventing a complete capitulation to same-sex “marriage” at the federal level: DOMA. Claiming that “it is only irrational prejudice that motivates” the law (p. 38), he sided with the ultra-Left on two separate cases. Although the couples who sued are considered “married” in the eyes of their state, they complained that DOMA kept them from getting federal perks like Social Security survivor payments or joint tax filings. So what did Judge Joseph Tauro do? He ruled that the government doesn’t have the right to set its own benefit policies–suggesting that he knows better than a supermajority of Congress what’s best for American taxpayers.
Tauro’s rationale for toppling DOMA was so absurd that even liberal Yale law professors like Jack Balkin said, “No chance they’ll be held up on appeal.” The two opinions are so convoluted that they even contract themselves. As Balkin said, the judge’s rulings are “at war with each other.” Judge Tauro also claimed that there’s no precedent for a federal definition of marriage. The people of Utah might disagree–seeing as it wouldn’t be a state today if the Supreme Court hadn’t ruled that it must outlaw polygamy first. In 1878, the Supreme Court declared that polygamy wasn’t protected by the Constitution (Reynolds v. United States). In fact, that ruling was even stronger than DOMA, because it was a blanket rejection of polygamy. Unlike DOMA, it didn’t leave the question up to states.
Regardless of Tauro’s skewed views, the blame for this decision lies directly at the feet of Elena Kagan and her boss, President Obama. The President has called for overturning DOMA, but as Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan is responsible for defending existing federal laws in court. But instead of trying to win the case, she intentionally sabotaged it, dropping the strongest arguments in favor of DOMA. At the time, legal experts were shocked that she didn’t include procreation as the main reason for protecting man-woman marriage.
It was an omission so stunning that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) brought it up in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings last week. “Could you please explain why the Justice Department abandoned the argument that traditional marriage rationally serves the legitimate interest of promoting the raising of children by both parents, which Congress could reasonably conclude is the optimal environment for raising children?” he asked. She stammered through a response, claiming that she wasn’t the “decision-maker.” Now, Kagan may delegate some details to other Justice Department attorneys, but as the White House’s chief litigator, she has the final say. That bothered Sen. Grassley, along with Kagan’s open hostility for DOMA. “You took an oath to defend the laws of the United States, including DOMA. Would you agree that calling a law discriminatory and advocating for its repeal is no defense?” (Watch the exchange here.) Kagan tried to convince Sen. Grassley that her office “vigorously defended” DOMA before Judge Tauro. How? By renouncing the most powerful justification for DOMA used by Congress? The bottom line is that defending marriage was Elena Kagan’s responsibility as Solicitor General. But if she won’t fight for the law when she’s paid and appointed to, then she certainly won’t fight for it when she’s an unaccountable Supreme Court justice.
All eyes will now be on the Kagan, the Justice Department, and the Obama administration to see if they will appeal yesterday’s rulings to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. If the DOJ does respond, the federal Office of Personnel Management would be a defendant. (And, oh by the way, it’s headed by an activist homosexual.) For more information on the importance of DOMA, click here see the new pamphlet by FRC’s Chris Gacek. Also, follow this link to see a video interview with Chris about the ramifications of yesterday’s ruling.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10G05&f=PG07J01
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council,
Boston Massacre of Marriage
Four hundred twenty-seven. That’s how many members of Congress voted to pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. One. The number of activist judges it took to strike the law down.
Yesterday, a U.S. District Court did its best to preserve Massachusetts’s reputation as the most liberal state in America on marriage. In Boston, a federal judge used his gavel to shatter the one law preventing a complete capitulation to same-sex “marriage” at the federal level: DOMA. Claiming that “it is only irrational prejudice that motivates” the law (p. 38), he sided with the ultra-Left on two separate cases. Although the couples who sued are considered “married” in the eyes of their state, they complained that DOMA kept them from getting federal perks like Social Security survivor payments or joint tax filings. So what did Judge Joseph Tauro do? He ruled that the government doesn’t have the right to set its own benefit policies–suggesting that he knows better than a supermajority of Congress what’s best for American taxpayers.
Tauro’s rationale for toppling DOMA was so absurd that even liberal Yale law professors like Jack Balkin said, “No chance they’ll be held up on appeal.” The two opinions are so convoluted that they even contract themselves. As Balkin said, the judge’s rulings are “at war with each other.” Judge Tauro also claimed that there’s no precedent for a federal definition of marriage. The people of Utah might disagree–seeing as it wouldn’t be a state today if the Supreme Court hadn’t ruled that it must outlaw polygamy first. In 1878, the Supreme Court declared that polygamy wasn’t protected by the Constitution (Reynolds v. United States). In fact, that ruling was even stronger than DOMA, because it was a blanket rejection of polygamy. Unlike DOMA, it didn’t leave the question up to states.
Regardless of Tauro’s skewed views, the blame for this decision lies directly at the feet of Elena Kagan and her boss, President Obama. The President has called for overturning DOMA, but as Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan is responsible for defending existing federal laws in court. But instead of trying to win the case, she intentionally sabotaged it, dropping the strongest arguments in favor of DOMA. At the time, legal experts were shocked that she didn’t include procreation as the main reason for protecting man-woman marriage.
It was an omission so stunning that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) brought it up in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings last week. “Could you please explain why the Justice Department abandoned the argument that traditional marriage rationally serves the legitimate interest of promoting the raising of children by both parents, which Congress could reasonably conclude is the optimal environment for raising children?” he asked. She stammered through a response, claiming that she wasn’t the “decision-maker.” Now, Kagan may delegate some details to other Justice Department attorneys, but as the White House’s chief litigator, she has the final say. That bothered Sen. Grassley, along with Kagan’s open hostility for DOMA. “You took an oath to defend the laws of the United States, including DOMA. Would you agree that calling a law discriminatory and advocating for its repeal is no defense?” (Watch the exchange here.) Kagan tried to convince Sen. Grassley that her office “vigorously defended” DOMA before Judge Tauro. How? By renouncing the most powerful justification for DOMA used by Congress? The bottom line is that defending marriage was Elena Kagan’s responsibility as Solicitor General. But if she won’t fight for the law when she’s paid and appointed to, then she certainly won’t fight for it when she’s an unaccountable Supreme Court justice.
All eyes will now be on the Kagan, the Justice Department, and the Obama administration to see if they will appeal yesterday’s rulings to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. If the DOJ does respond, the federal Office of Personnel Management would be a defendant. (And, oh by the way, it’s headed by an activist homosexual.) For more information on the importance of DOMA, click here see the new pamphlet by FRC’s Chris Gacek. Also, follow this link to see a video interview with Chris about the ramifications of yesterday’s ruling.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10G05&f=PG07J01