USA: Prop 8 / Defense of Marriage Act Updates 3/13/13

Written by scott on March 13th, 2013

President Barack ObamaAs the court date rapidly approaches for the Prop 8 and Defense of Marriage Act cases, we have a smattering of news for you.

Joe.My.God reports that NOM is likening this case to the epic Supreme Court decision on abortion, Roe v. Wade:

“If you could go back to 1973, would you participate in a march to save society from the scourge of abortion? Would you go to Washington to show the Supreme Court that you are one of a multitude of people who are demanding that they not use our constitution to create a great moral and civic wrong? If we lose the Perry case, or the companion Windsor v United States case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the damage to the country will be severe. Soon, people of faith who believe in marriage as God designed it will be targeted for punishment.”

They want your money, of course.

Senator Rand Paul takes a stab at resolving the whole thing in one fell swoop, as Slate reports:

“…I think contracts between adults — I’m not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn’t mention the word marriage, then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is. We just don’t have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don’t we not define them by marriage? Why don’t we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don’t have to redfine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the Southeastern part of the country, we don’t have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral.”

Just fix the tax code and presto – no marriage equality needed.

Speaking of NOM, their Black Pastor front group, The Coalition of African-American Pastors, spews some nastiness about the gays:

“If you watch the men who have been caught having sex with little boys, you will note that all of them will say that they were molested as a child…” Owens said. “For the president to condone this type of thing is irresponsible.”

Lovely.

For his part, President Obama took a further step in his evolution on the issue. The Huffington Post reports:

Stephanopoulos then asked whether Obama could imagine a circumstance wherein a state’s gay marriage ban could pass constitutional muster. “Well, I can’t, personally. I cannot,” Obama responded. “That’s part of the reason I said, ultimately, I think that, same-sex couples should be able to marry. That’s my personal position. And, frankly, that’s the position that’s reflected — in the briefs that we filed — in the Supreme Court.”

So much for the whole “states’ rights” line.

LGBTQ Nation tells us that the head of the American Family Association warns of dire consequences if Prop 8 and DOMA are overturned by the Court:

You’re headed down the road of persecution against Christians who believe in the Bible as their standard for moral behavior. In Canada now they have different rules there where you can’t even criminalize the lifestyle itself or you’ll be charged with a hate crime. You know that’s the road we’re headed down if these laws, if DOMA is struck down, if Prop 8 is struck down, then you’re headed for control of speech, even if it’s religious speech.

Like some of these same organizations and their allies are trying to control speech in Russia, Scotland, and Tennessee, among other places? The irony is delicious.

Over at Towleroad.com, Ari Ezra Waldman takes a deeper look at the briefs from marriage equality opponents:

So while the most irrational anti-gay arguments have long since been trashed, the remainder fail the test of logic: Even if it were true that gay couples’ means of procreation set them outside the target of the government’s interest in encouraging heterosexual marriage, that says nothing about why gays would have to be excluded from marriage in order to further that interest. Think of it this way: if it is true that the sky is blue, that really tells us nothing about whether the ground is brown. If the government has an interest in encouraging heterosexuals to marry, that cannot explain why that interest means that it has to ban gays from marrying.

Thirteen days until the first hearing. Are you going to a marriage equality rally near you?

 

Leave a Comment