Moron DOMA
Jun. 12th, 2009 09:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmatonakThis is a comment I posted in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
digital_eraser's journal, extensively revised because I am really getting pissed off here.
To deny federal recognition to same-sex `marriages' will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose. -- House report on the Defense of Marriage Act
The argument here is that gay Americans can't have civil rights because the government can't afford it. It's a load of crap.
Every so often, someone wants the federal government to do something it just plain isn't allowed to do. And someone writes an end-run around the Constitution and talks about how there's a "legitimate government objective"- the appearance of that phrase is a red flag. (I note the substitution of the word "purpose", and chuckle sourly.)
The discussion of the full faith and credit clause as applied in DOMA is a cross between funny and terrifying. It basically consists of petulant whining about states having to recognize marriages that are legal in one state but not another. No plausible argument against that is advanced- instead, there are footnotes full of dire warnings about spoooky Lambda Legal and how "sensible" and "strong" their case for recognizing gay marriage is. Smack in the middle of it we find:
Upholding traditional morality, encouraging procreation in the context of families, encouraging heterosexuality--these and other important legitimate governmental purposes would be undermined by forcing another State to recognize same-sex unions.
See? There it is again. Because the government sticking its big bazoo into the details of families and procreation is totally legitimate. (They didn't even bother attaching it to a real federal power. I'm surprised. Usually, they bust out the Commmerce Clause.) And there's the paranoia about "encouraging heterosexuality." Straightness is a delicate flower! It can't survive on its own!
Anyway, the footnotes basically concede the argument for gay marriage is a winner. In a desperate attempt to justify this crap, the report blathers on about the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
The constitutionality of DOMA rests on the second sentence. Congress implicitly takes the position that it doesn't have to abide by the first sentence because the second allows it to ignore acts of states when it happens not to like them. Because "the effect thereof" can mean no effect at all. Which is plainly giving "full faith" to the state acts rendered ineffectual, amirite?
Desegregation must have been pretty expensive too. And the Bush-holdover hack who wrote the brief defending this piece of shit, and his superiors on up to the President, should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
Legal hackery: not just for torturers anymore!
ETA: The sarcasm quotes around the word "marriage" in the congressional report on DOMA are a particularly classy touch.
digital_eraser's journal, extensively revised because I am really getting pissed off here. To deny federal recognition to same-sex `marriages' will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose. -- House report on the Defense of Marriage Act
The argument here is that gay Americans can't have civil rights because the government can't afford it. It's a load of crap.
Every so often, someone wants the federal government to do something it just plain isn't allowed to do. And someone writes an end-run around the Constitution and talks about how there's a "legitimate government objective"- the appearance of that phrase is a red flag. (I note the substitution of the word "purpose", and chuckle sourly.)
The discussion of the full faith and credit clause as applied in DOMA is a cross between funny and terrifying. It basically consists of petulant whining about states having to recognize marriages that are legal in one state but not another. No plausible argument against that is advanced- instead, there are footnotes full of dire warnings about spoooky Lambda Legal and how "sensible" and "strong" their case for recognizing gay marriage is. Smack in the middle of it we find:
Upholding traditional morality, encouraging procreation in the context of families, encouraging heterosexuality--these and other important legitimate governmental purposes would be undermined by forcing another State to recognize same-sex unions.
See? There it is again. Because the government sticking its big bazoo into the details of families and procreation is totally legitimate. (They didn't even bother attaching it to a real federal power. I'm surprised. Usually, they bust out the Commmerce Clause.) And there's the paranoia about "encouraging heterosexuality." Straightness is a delicate flower! It can't survive on its own!
Anyway, the footnotes basically concede the argument for gay marriage is a winner. In a desperate attempt to justify this crap, the report blathers on about the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
The constitutionality of DOMA rests on the second sentence. Congress implicitly takes the position that it doesn't have to abide by the first sentence because the second allows it to ignore acts of states when it happens not to like them. Because "the effect thereof" can mean no effect at all. Which is plainly giving "full faith" to the state acts rendered ineffectual, amirite?
Desegregation must have been pretty expensive too. And the Bush-holdover hack who wrote the brief defending this piece of shit, and his superiors on up to the President, should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
Legal hackery: not just for torturers anymore!
ETA: The sarcasm quotes around the word "marriage" in the congressional report on DOMA are a particularly classy touch.
