US Appeals Court "strikes down" Defense of Marriage Act provisions
by Mass Resistance
US Appeals Court "strikes down" Defense of Marriage Act provisions regarding federal benefits, tax filing. First step toward forcing "gay marriage" on entire country
On Thursday, May 31, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was again "struck down" by a unanimous decision of the three-judge US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston -- supporting the original decision handed down in July, 2010. An analysis of the ruling reveals both the shrewd strategy of the homosexual activists and the level of absurdity that liberal federal judges are willing to accept.
|Of course, the liberal media treated this like a great victory in the quest for universal social justice.||
Suit filed in 2010, with federal judge ruling in favor
The suit was filed in Boston in 2010 by several "married" homosexual couples with the assistance of the state-supported homosexual legal group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and the (extremely pro-gay) Mass. Attorney General Martha Coakley. MassResistance covered this suit when it was argued in Boston in May, 2010. And we covered and analyzed the original decision in July, 2010, by Judge Joseph L. Tauro "striking down" the law. This was the appeal of that ruling.
Lesbian lawyer Mary Bonauto of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders holds press conference at federal court house on May 6, 2010 after filing DOMA lawsuit.
Victory lap. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley holds press conference in her office on July 8, 2010 after original ruling by judge.
Read her press release HERE.
Since then the Obama administration announced that the US Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA in court, so the US House of Representatives hired its own legal group to defend it.
The decision was written by Judge Michael Boudin, part of a long parade of now-liberal judges who were appointed by Republicans. Boudin was appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990.
What the ruling does
The court does not strike down DOMA entirely. It strikes down the part that prohibits "legally married" same-sex couples from filing joint federal income taxes as a married couple receiving federal benefits including Social Security, veterans benefits, and others, as a married couple, and also.
Thus, it evokes the constitutional "equal protection" clause to claim that DOMA deprives same-sex couples the same federal rights and advantages as heterosexual couples. The ruling added that "Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."
The decision technically only affects states in the First District, which includes much of New England, but it would would be used as a vehicle for courts in the rest of the nation to quickly follow suit. However, Thursday's ruling does not immediately strike down the law, but postpones it until after a further appeal before the US Supreme Court.
A tortured path of legal logic
The decision, which can be read here, was the result of a fairly tortured path of legal logic. It takes up the so-called "rational basis" test to explore the validity Congress had in passing the law in the first place. It's an absurdly subjecive "legal" argument which liberal courts increasingly use, and was was a main part of the Goodrich decision in 2003 which created "gay marriage" in Massachusetts. In other words, the court purports to judge whether Congress passed the DOMA law for the "right" reasons.
In addition, they make use of various hand-picked favorable prior court decisions to patch together a "legal" basis for discrediting the DOMA law. Among other things, this assertion that the "moral disapproval of homosexuality" is no longer considered legitimate as a basis for the law.
The decision thus asserts that homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" are legitimate and unassailable from a moral or other standpoint. And from that assertion, homosexual "marriage" and heterosexual marriage are morally and legally interchangeable. And homosexuals are simply a minority group whose rights are illegally being denied by the federal government. This is all the homosexual groups needed to move forward.
The First District Federal Courthouse in Boston.
A shrewd strategy by the homosexual movement
The homosexual movement knows it cannot accomplish its goals through the ballot box (they've lost 32 state elections in a row). They've had some success through massive lobbying of state legislatures. But their most direct way is through corrupt courts. Taking down the DOMA law is key to forcing the imposition of "gay marriage" throughout America despite the votes in those 32 states. But it's still a considerable legal challenge to do it all at once.
So by successfully attacking this narrow part of the DOMA law -- federal benefits and income tax filing status -- the homosexual movement opens the door to sebsequently dismantling all the rest of it.
Thus, the first step in their strategy is forcing the federal government to recognize "gay marriages" as legal throughout all its bureauracy, tax system, and legal system. And by accomplishing this, everyone in America is forced to be a part of the recognition of "gay marriage" in some way.
From there, it is much easier to make the legal argument that DOMA creates a situation of unconstitutional "discrimination" by the states. In other words, if the federal government must recognize any "legal gay marriage" in America, then why shouldn't the individual states be required to do the same thing?
So states which do not allow same-sex "marriages" to be performed would be forced to legally recognize ones from other states. That ultimately causes the whole DOMA purpose to collapse. Any homosexual couple in America could simply go to a nearby state and have a "gay marriage" that their home state would be forced to recognize through all its bureaucracy, tax system, benefits, etc., exactly the same way as normal marriage.
Cherry picking the court. Finally, there's no question that the homosexual lobby cherry-picked probably the most liberal federal court on these kinds of issues. These federal judges have been living in Boston among same-sex "marriages" for eight years in the extremely heated pro-gay political and media climate. Attorney General Martha Coakley is likely a fairly imposing, or at least respected, figure to them. And this court has a history of outrageous anti-family decisions -- the South Boston Parade and David Parker cases being among the most prominent.
The only way to stop this . . .
As long as homosexual behavior is not presented as abnormal, medically dangerous, and morally repugnant we will continue to lose. If other side is allowed to portray homosexuality as normal and natural (but something conservatives simply are "bigoted" about) in their legal arguments, they will always eventually prevail. We cannot concede those points and instead attempt to argue on the basis of "legal" reasoning, the historical "purpose" of marriage, or weak-kneed arguments such as "every child needs a mother and father." But unfortunately that is exactly what too many pro-family lawyers and pro-family spokesmen do. It's the "respectable" path. But it's cowardly, ineffective, and the road to hell (so to speak).
MassResistance interviewed by Boston's National Public Radio
The afternoon of this week's court's decision, MassResistance received a phone call the Boston affiliate of National Public Radio, WBUR, which interviewed Brian Camenker via phone. Let's just say that our comments were probably much more direct than they were expecting! Not surprisingly, they didn't use any of it on their radio show. But they used a few sentences in the web version of their report, which you can see HERE.
On to the US Supreme Court
The next step is the US Supreme Court. Will they agree with this? We certainly hope not, but it's frightenly possible.
Our side has a terribly bad record of winning these kinds of court cases -- for the reasons stated above. In the grand scheme of things, any legal argument on homosexual "marriage" is bordering on madness, because the concept itself is sheer lunacy. George Orwell once said, "We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." Let's hope that the House of Representatives' legal team can find it in themselves to do the right thing.