Repeal of DOMA
It strikes me as rather unlikely that Nadler’s bill will pass, but it should.
I still owe TAS readers an explanation of why and how I’ve changed my thinking on the subject of gay marriage. (I used to favor a generous civil unions law at the state level; I’d now support a same-sex marriage law, also at the state level. That’s only a small click to the left, but it’s a very significant one for a lot of people – and I understand why both sides of the issue find it significant.) But I have always, so far as I can recall, supported the repeal of DOMA, and the return of this question to the states, where it properly belongs.
I’d like to associate myself with everything in that post Noah, because it’s pretty much the same with me.
— PEG · Sep 11, 05:22 PM · #
It is no longer acceptable to have a public blog discussion on this issue.
— C3 · Sep 11, 06:46 PM · #
I support the repeal of Doma but I don’t understand how this brings the decisions back the the individual states. The largest issue of Doma is the full faith and credit issue.
Though now if I think about it if you are referring to the federal government not recognizing same sex marriage then I guess that does give the decision in some sense back the the states. But once again, if one state recognizes gay marriage, in effect all states do.
— Marshall · Sep 11, 07:20 PM · #
C3, what do you mean? That to have a discussion, on a blog, of all things, in which one side of the discussion might support DOMA, would be unacceptable? Would you like TAS to prevent me from saying the following, which is true: “I support DOMA”? Would you like to encourage the opponents of DOMA on this site to hound me with insults, try to shame me, refuse to engage with any arguments I present, etc.? This happens on many blogs when people present the con-side to gay marriage.
If so, it would appear that you are one of those who would use our freedom of discussion to propose that SOME OF US no longer be allowed to join that discussion.
Or maybe this is your odd way of lamenting the fact that you feel unfree to express pro-DOMA sentiments anymore? I cannot tell for sure.
Of course, if Millman supoports court decisions like the Goodridge one in Mass., then while commendably letting me have my free speech, he’d certainly prefer to never let me (or any American) VOTE on the issue. The judges will let us know…
Oh, and in the largely (yeah, VT voted, I know) fantasy-land scenario in which we really are permitted in the future by the Dem-appointed judge-rulers to VOTE ON IT, I’d vote against gay marriage, sure, but I would never, ever, vote for civil unions. With the hypothetical gun to my head where I have to vote civil unions or gay marriage, no third option, I’d vote gay marriage. B/c civil unions will not be limited to gays, but will be used by lawyers to create a vast menu of marriage-ish options that will in the long run make heteros behave even more badly than they currently do. And that’s in nobody’s interest.
Noah, are you opposed to the Goodridge decisions and others like it? Because this “up or down” way of framing the issue totally ignores what is likely to actually come down the pike. Are you one of the honorable few who is pro-gay-marriage but con-judicial-imposition-thereof?
— Carl Scott · Sep 11, 09:26 PM · #
Shorter Carl Scott: Whatever law can be used by the State to control most completely the sexual behavior of adults is the right law.
Now let’s take that to the voters. Because we have the good fortune of living in a society in which ‘vox populi, vox dei’.
— JohnMcC · Sep 12, 06:27 PM · #
Noah — Just want to encourage you to Write That Post Already. As one of those long-time readers who remembers (with admiration) a Gideon’s Blog post on the subject (which you recently said you no longer agree with), I’d like to know how your views have changed. Not just cause I’m a Millman fanboy, but because I know you will not caricature either side of the debate, but will give both their due.
I’m a Catholic, and my guess is that I can only follow your reasoning so far because at some point marriage in my definition is a sacrament, established a certain way (like the male priesthood as well) by God and not open to accusations of discrimination or unfairness. But, I should stop guessing what you’re thinking and just start waiting for you to write it. Looking forward to it.
— Chris Floyd · Sep 13, 02:36 AM · #
Well, JohnMcC, yes sometimes democracy does suck. When one’s side loses, for instance. And then we see how committed to democracy you are. I say: slavery is always wrong, abortion-on-demand is always wrong, doesn’t matter how many states vote for what is wrong. Now, I think gays marrying is also wrong, although it is much less of a wrong, really a qualitatively different degree of wrong, than is slavery or abortion. So no, my morality is not defined by the majority. (And no, I do not favor efforts of the government to control what we do in the bedroom—with Justice Thomas I think that anti-sodomy laws are foolish invitations to police abuse—by keeping gays from marrying, our laws do not keep gays from doing what they will in the bedroom.)
As for the state-by-state thing causing an impractical patchwork of legal statuses, well, that’s why social conservatives like yours truly favored not just DOMA, but a Federal Marriage Amendment giving us a national standard for marriage—between one man and one woman. But we didn’t have the votes for that, and won’t for the foreseeable future.
What then would it take to get national uniformity on this issue? Since the winds are blowing in a gay-rights direction? One thing only: a single standard issued by judge rulers, mandating gay marriages, all state laws and even amendments to the contrary. This would be done by finding a substatantive due process liberty to a) define one’s own sexuality idenity and have its dignity protected, and to b) have the public honor any marriage-like contract connected to that identity. Our judge rulers will likely find some illogical reasoning for saying that c) this doesn’t apply to polygamists, simply because folks like myself have been making the argument that they cannot be consistent otherwise, but that’s the way it will probably happen.
It would not be judging, but ruling. It would not be Constitutional, but an arbitrary and elite defacto amendment of the Constitution.
Citizens, READ Lawrence v. Texas. READ Goodrich v. Massachusetts Dept. of Health. READ the “collective” California marriage case.
Somethings might really be more important than the convenience of tens of thousands of inconvenienced gays (and admittedly, serious hardship can be involved for the cases were gay couples are helping out with unadopted kids). Say, the C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N? Say, having enough respect for your fellow citizens that you’ll let them have DEMOCRATIC say?
Finally, if by some miracle of moderation we make the judge rulers halt and we actually let our fellow citizens VOTE ON IT, and gays win state-by-state and eventually in all, then the people GRANT gays the dignity that even the non-marrying kind of gay (the vast majority of male gays) says is at stake in this debate. But if we leave it, as good Democrats want us to, to the JUDGE RULERS, then the people are FORCED to grant this dignity! Where’s the dignity in that?
— Carl Scott · Sep 14, 07:28 PM · #
DOMA needs to be repealed. The fact that we enshrined prejudice into federal law is a stain on America. The question is not about whether gays should be entitled to marry, it’s about putting laws in place that discriminate against a specific minority. You can insert any minority into the legislation and its not hard to make the mental jump. If you discriminate against one, you discriminate against all. The problem is the heterosexual belief that they hold all the keys to the kingdom and can exclude at will. We are your friends and neighbors, relatives and loved ones. Can you honestly look us in the face and say you deserve the rights and privledges granted to you by the American government and we do not? My biggest pet peeve is those who think that the rights of others should be voted on by the majority. If I suggested that its the right of every homosexual in America to vote on a heterosexuals right to inherit property or some other rediculous example I would be rediculed to no end. Take a minute and think about that situation carefully. Its absurdity seems to be lost on those very people who think they have the right to vote on a homosexual’s marriage, right to protect their children, right to visit one another in hospitals, right to provide health insurance to thier partner, etc…
— Andy · Sep 14, 08:03 PM · #