August 20, 2013
Defense of DOMA
I am always suspicious of “organizations” with names like Family Institute, Family Council, Focus on the Family, Family Research (put any word here you like).
Often they appear to be religious right organizations on the fringes of being hate groups (see Southern Poverty Law Center listings of such groups).
Attorney General Kathleen Kane decided to not defend Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act for a very good reason, which Randall Wenger seems to have missed.
A very similar section of the Federal DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. California’s Proposition 8 disallowing same-gender marriage was struck down by an appellate court and the Supreme Court refused to overturn that decision.
In reading positions by our esteemed senator and representative, the only rational for denying same-gendered couples equal protection is that they “believe marriage is only between a man and a woman.”
They can believe as they wish, but this is not a rational reason for denying a significant sector of the population basic rights.
Beliefs and majority votes should never deny citizens basic rights given them in the US Constitution.
The religious right rails against government interference only when it suits their “beliefs.” They are very willing to have the government interfere with the privacy and basic rights if it doesn’t suit their beliefs.
They constantly use the Constitution similarly.
I have yet to hear a cogent reason why marriage needs to be defended in response to same-gender marriages. Opposite-sex marriage seem to fail at greater rate in states that do not allow same-gender marriages for wholly unrelated reasons.