SCOTUS Rule Against DOMA; Toss it Back To the States...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


But in a move that is sure to deepen tension between the right wing and the House leadership, social conservatives are gearing up to reignite the fight in D.C.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), speaking at a Tuesday meeting between reporters and conservative lawmakers, said he will file a constitutional amendment in Congress late this week to restore DOMA. Huelskamp said he will be joined by other conservatives.

“My response to this [decision] will be later this week to file a federal marriage amendment,” he said.

And so we see yet more republican unwillingness to accept that which is ethically and morally right. While many who are fiscally conservative and socially libertarian had hoped reason would ultimately prevail in the republican party, such will not be.

The full story from POLITICO...


Congressional Republican leaders are speaking with resounding unity: the same-sex marriage fight is ending on Capitol Hill.

While conservative rank-and-file want to continue the fight that has, in part, defined the Republican Party for much of the last few decades, leadership is eager to shift it to state capitals across the country.

House Speaker John Boehner, whose leadership spent millions to defend DOMA, said he was “disappointed” in the decision, but did not promise action in the Republican House.

“While I am obviously disappointed in the ruling, it is always critical that we protect our system of checks and balances,” Boehner said in a statement. “A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square, and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said he’s “disappointed in this decision, and the marriage debate will continue in the states”

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No 2. Senate Republican, said “like it or not, the Supreme Court is the final word on constitutional matters.”

“It sounds to me that that battle will be moving to the states,” Cornyn said. “The issue is not going away and there are going to be havens of traditional values like Texas where I don’t think the law is going to be changed.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) simply flashed a smile and ignored a reporter’s question about the court’s decision Wednesday.

Skip

When asked if leadership is likely to support efforts to restore DOMA, Huelskamp said he was encouraged by the Boehner’s statement after the ruling. “I give tremendous credit to the Speaker of House,” Huelskamp said.

It would be a drastic understatement to say the political dynamics of gay rights and gay marriage are shifting. National Republican politics and policy reflects the changing electorate.

The congressional GOP leadership that spent much of the last few decades trying to write into the Constitution its opposition to gay marriage, now appears to be waving the white flag when it comes to national policy. The party does face a shifting electorate, which is increasingly more comfortable with same-sex marriage, and several congressional Republicans — including Ohio Sen. Rob Portman — have endorsed same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately the "... several congressional Republicans — including Ohio Sen. Rob Portman — have endorsed same-sex marriage" are in the decided minority. Therein lies one the reason the republican party is rapidly losing much of the nation to the Libertarian Party and the Democratic Party.



Via: Memeorandum

9 comments:

  1. I disagree. Marriage is a definition. No civil rights are at stake here as everyone has equal opportunity to enter into a marriage if they choose. The definition happens to be one which enables natural procreation and is intended to stabilize society around humanities inherent proclivities.

    If you wish to be gay, great. I support people who protect the constitution. However, do not trample the most important institution in the lives of most Americans with some emotional argument that has no basis in rationality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The emotionalism, if there is any rests with those who cling to DOMA and mysticism of religous dogma.

      Reason is on the side of those who advocate equal rights under the law. Irrespective of their sexual and marital circumstances.

      Fifty five percent of America agrees with the SCOTUS, and that number with grow. As it well should.

      Gays and Lesbias make up a very small percentage of the populations. They always have and I suspect strongly that the percentage will remain the same for another fee thousand years.

      But I suppose there will always be the insecure who feel threatened by the existence of gays and lesbians among us.

      I am quite certain soon the religous right will be rolling out the Bible and feeding the fear angle. I'm sure you know what I refer to.

      Delete
    2. Rational, I think you might be oversimplifying opposition to gay marriage as well as resorting to Obama-like "bitter clingers" arguments. People have the right to their own morality, just because it does not agree with yours, does not mean you should resort to Alinsky tactics of ridicule.

      I do not support gay marriage (though I do not oppose it in any significant way) but I completely understand those who do support it. Rights are rights after all. But so are beliefs. And in the United States you are particularly lucky to have the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court was correct in leaving the decisioning with the states. While California may fully embrace gay marriage, and Texas probably won't, that's okay. That's where the 'argument' will get resolved. Because there is relative freedom of movement in the United States, people who want gay marriage, will gravitate towards states which have favorable gay marriage rules. Those who do not, won't, they'll go to Texas or Louisiana (or wherever). Those who don't care, probably won't move at all.

      If gay marriage is such an important issue it will impact states' economies and if opposing it is morally abhorrent no one will move to states with restrictive laws. If it has economic impacts, then those morally repugnant, emotional, insecure people huddled into those states will suffer from their own narrow-mindedness. But I suspect that will not be the case. There will be a spectrum of liberality on the issue and it won't much tie into economic performance. Nevertheless, this will all sort itself out over time. And if you are right, time will bear you out.

      By the way, I have never felt threatened by the existence of gays and lesbians. I have gay relatives and have gay friends. I do not judge them by that standard, that is entirely their business. They should have all the same rights as everyone. But the concept of marriage is ages old and wanting to preserve its meaning is not something to be tossed aside without regard to those who hold dear its historical meaning either.

      Delete
    3. You know what they say about opinions. :-)

      Far from Alinski type tactics or Obama "bitter cliners."

      Thankfully mankind decided there was something better than the square wheel.

      Some people just don't accept change well.

      Oh, by the way, whether you are gay or lesbian in Alabama. Texas, or California you're still gay. The rights you claim to support should be universal in the USA. And eventually they will.



      Delete
    4. No argument about some people not accepting change well. Conversely however, some people do not accept that the wheel has been perfected and we don't need to evolve to a triangular wheel either.

      I also agree that eventually there rights will and should be adapted by every state, but they should not be forced to do so at the same time, or more importantly in the exact same way. Every state adapting their own policies is a healthy thing. The successful policy states will be emulated and the ones with bad policies will be left behind and forced to adapt. The point is this - when Edison invented the light bulb he supposedly tried 9,999 times and got it right on try number 10,000. He regarded each of those 9,999 attempts as not failures but learning experiences on how not to make a light bulb. 50 different solution attempts offers a higher chance of coming up with the single best way to do things rather than mandating all states adapt it.

      That's the top down type of government that leads to 5 Year Plans and ultimately collapse. The 10th amendment gives America 50 chances to come up with the right solution instead of one shot. It's an ingenious way to decentralize. We cannot pick and choose where the federal government imposes its solutions and doesn't.

      The rare exceptions like slavery are patently obvious. gay rights and abortion do not rise to the critical level of slavery and should be left to the states to sort it out. Eventually they will.

      I also like Nick's suggestion below.

      Delete
  2. Personally, I like the SCOTUS ruling/logic (let the states define it, make the other states and federal government respect it, however it's defined), but I still think it's not an optimal solution. Gay "marriage" is only a conflict because "marriage" has deep roots in religions, and also confers certain rights under the law.

    As I've maintained before, if you separate those two concepts, the whole problem goes away. To wit, make the government get rid of "marriage" as a legal concept associated with any rights, and replace it with civil union, for all types of couples. Make "marriage" the realm of religions, with an associated civil union by default (although not at all required for a civil union). Allow the states to extend civil union rights to whoever they want, and force the other states to respect any civil union (regardless of state-level opinions on "marriage").

    Both parties would be happy, I think. Marriage would be reserved for those who could qualify for it under whatever religion was sanctifying the marriage, and religions could still freely discriminate and continue to be intolerant (and you could also certainly have religions which would sanctify gay marriage). The state would ignore that distinction, and offer civil union benefits to any couple which wanted them, with full rights under the law. Both side can get what they want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick, I like your reasoning and for reasonable and sensible people your solution would be be a no brainier.

      Thank you for presenting another sensible view that I had not fully considered.

      Delete
    2. Nick, I have embraced your "solution" for a long time. So do most libertarians and some brave politicians. (Rand Paul, for instance.)

      In the end, I maintain that this is primarily about money. If government removed all the penalties and rewards from the issue of marriage, the problem (as you indicated) would cease to be a major issue.

      I am not married because the government sanctioned it. I am married because of promises I made to my wife and God in front of witnesses.

      Delete
    3. Nick, that is a sensible solution that should indeed make the problem go away (almost). No one would be sanctioning anything they didn't want to support. There would still be some people that it did not satisfy. Gay people who are also Christian, Jewish or Muslim would still not be able to marry in their church of choice (more tolerant sects excepted). There would also still be people who are religious and feel it is morally wrong and those who feel that the religious institutions should be forced to change.

      But while no solution would ever please everyone, this would certainly minimize the fallout as much as possible. I like it.

      Grant - great points about money and the reason for your marriage.

      Delete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.