DOMA decision: judge not, unless you’re liberal
June 29, 2013 Leave a comment
Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision on Windsor v US is remarkable on a number of levels. It’s an exceedingly rare instance where liberals celebrate an old, rich white person getting huge tax break. In this case, it is to the tune of $363,053. I wonder what principled reason leads the Left to applaud rather than object to the outcome.
In writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy supplies that principled reason. It seems on his view that President Bill Clinton and a sweeping majority of the 104th Congress were bigots intent on inflicting “injury and indignity” on gay couples, a “politically unpopular group.” Does this sound a bit . . . judgmental? It’s hard to believe that gays and lesbians are “unpopular” in 2013, a mere 17 years after the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) came into effect. Flipping on any random television sitcom, reality show, or talk show indicates the contrary.
So what has changed in that brief span of time in America, in the hearts of Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer, high-profile Democrats who voted for DOMA but now celebrate its demise? Perhaps there was something akin to President Obama’s “evolution.” A subjective, personal premise for legislation.
This would explain why, when politicians and media throw about “equality” or “discrimination” in the public square, candor and lucidity seem to be in short supply. President Obama merely asserts that DOMA was “discrimination enshrined in law.” What is the condition where discrimination obtains? I didn’t see Justice Kennedy supply it. If I were to guess, that criteria likely hinges on what the Critical Race Theory professor at Harvard Law had for lunch.
The SCOTUS Windsor ruling is anything but assuring for the integrity of our democratic republic. Especially in light of growing irresponsibility in the Executive. California Governor Schwarzenegger shirked his duty to defend Proposition 8 without consequence. Likewise, President Obama and Eric Holder were rather . . . discriminating when it came to whether or not the Justice Department would defend DOMA in court. This is not the rule of law. What happened to impartiality and professionalism, let alone charity in disagreement?
There’s a rational basis for government to recognize and enforce marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman. As a class, heterosexual relationships tend to produce children, and those children need to be protected against the parents’ inclination to terminate that commitment. To make marriage an issue of equal protection of benefits undercuts that indispensable reality. Inheritance issues, visitation rights, and so on–there’s an app for that. It’s called civil unions.
Neither should government dole out marriage as a way to validate feelings or affirm dignity. Sure, there were real dignity issues in the Jim Crow era. That was half a century ago.
Sometimes people complain about “legislating morality.” Never mind the incoherence of that critique; what are laws supposed to be if not moral? But I get the point; some legislative pushes come off as offensive, judgmental, and needlessly intrusive. Here we have not just “legislating morality,” but legislating from the bench.
When it comes to making distinctions, it seems we have a one-way street, a double standard in effect today. Judge not, unless you’re liberal.