So that happened. Miss Fierce Advocate-y Pants’s DOJ (including a leftover Mormon W-appointee) has thrown my people under the bus. Again. Arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act is “reasonable” and “constitutional.”
It’s not that I don’t understand the President took an oath to uphold the laws of the land, and that he must defend them whether he agrees with them or not, but this is zealous defense of a law MFAP, in his political platform, said he wanted to repeal. Until May, anyway, when his advocacy became somewhat less fierce and the repeal of DOMA disappeared from the list of priorities.
But this shit?
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”).
Child-bride and incest comparisons? Really, Mr. President?
DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits. To the contrary, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in federal employment and in a wide array of federal benefits programs by law, regulation, and Executive order…. Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.
Oh, and you totally have access to the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage. Just sham-marry someone of the opposite sex. Easy peasy.
I’m hoping the Crusty Bastard turns her keen legal mind on this, cuz I’d really like to hear what she has to say.
Meanwhile, get me a bromide. And put some gin in it.
Oh, it’s the anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia, btw. That’s like rain on your wedding day or something. Ironic and shit.
