Don't get me wrong. I'm still an Obama supporter, but he's going to have to do some hella damage control and give some concrete answers after this very offensive memo in defense of DOMA(Defense of Marriage Act).
In a nutshell, the memo states, among other things, that DOMA saves money, doesn't discriminate against gays, and most upsetting of all, compares gay marriages to incest, one of oldest and dumbest arguments in the book. Read this excerpt below if you don't believe:
The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").
And this part that pretty much insinuates that gays aren't a real minority group:
Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above — and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California — DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental — in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.
Granted, it's not like I'm running down the aisle to get married (Lawd knows the state of Louisiana isn't going to give me the right any time soon), and I do believe health care and the economy are more pressing issues right. But this is just wrong. Saying I shouldn't be allowed to marry because it saves people money and that it the law doesn't discriminate against me (even though that was the point of its creation, to "defend") disgusts me. Like I said before, I'm still an Obama supporter and don't think he hates gays or is some kind of bigot. But this memo makes it hard to believe that his administration doesn't think of our lives and relationships as somehow second rate.
Read more about the memo at americablog or read the whole motion here.
In a nutshell, the memo states, among other things, that DOMA saves money, doesn't discriminate against gays, and most upsetting of all, compares gay marriages to incest, one of oldest and dumbest arguments in the book. Read this excerpt below if you don't believe:
The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").
And this part that pretty much insinuates that gays aren't a real minority group:
Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above — and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California — DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental — in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.
Granted, it's not like I'm running down the aisle to get married (Lawd knows the state of Louisiana isn't going to give me the right any time soon), and I do believe health care and the economy are more pressing issues right. But this is just wrong. Saying I shouldn't be allowed to marry because it saves people money and that it the law doesn't discriminate against me (even though that was the point of its creation, to "defend") disgusts me. Like I said before, I'm still an Obama supporter and don't think he hates gays or is some kind of bigot. But this memo makes it hard to believe that his administration doesn't think of our lives and relationships as somehow second rate.
Read more about the memo at americablog or read the whole motion here.
Comments
I do know, from the beginning, that he did not approve of gay marraige on the basis of it redefining the meaning of "marriage" however, I just find his stance on this issue to be wishy washy.
As it is I feel that he does owe an explanation as to why he did sign off on such a bill.