DOMA Decisions May Render State Marriage Amendments Irrelevant

It may not matter, as the trend is going, even among conservative courts, if the four state marriage amendments pass or not.

Civil rights are winning, as they should.  The distinction between same sex marriage and gay marriage is insignificant; both groups do the same things in their marriage, including raising children, participating in their communities in a constructive way, and own property.  The relationships should have the same status because they are essentially the same thing.

Here is the latest on the significance of federal courts rejecting bans on same-sex marriage, with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, and by implication, that all state bans or state constitutional amendments are also unconstitutional.

The WaPo addressed the implications of religious freedom as distinct from civil rights here in an excellent analysis of the differences, as well as addressing the issue of political and social positions that are on the right - and wrong - side of history. The WaPo analysis is excerpted below:

In its decision, the court found Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional. Section 3 requires the federal government to treat legally married same-sex couples as single.

The question of marriage equality has both civil and religious implications. In fact, the majority decision by the Second Circuit Courts of Appeal is evidence of this. The decision states that: “[…] law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples. A state may enforce and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door.” (Windsor v. United States)

For religious institutions, the decision of the court reinforces that they will be free to act according to their own beliefs and theologies. The appeals court does more than just uphold lower courts decisions on the unconstitutionality of DOMA, it also upholds the right of every individual to exercise their religion as they see fit. Moreover, contrary to what anti-marriage equality organizations have tried to portray, decisions like this are clear examples of the freedoms and liberties religious organizations have in the United States. This case demonstrates that the civil institution of marriage has nothing to do with the religious rite of holy matrimony.

There is another important factor in Thursday’s court decision on the unconstitutionality of DOMA. Namely, when voters pass a law or a constitutional amendment to strip citizens of their rights, the US government, with its system of checks and balances, has the means to protect those whose rights have been taken from them. This is one of the many reasons why state initiatives to deny others their rights – in this case, the right to marry – are bound to fail at the end. As the anti-equality arguments used to pass such measures are held up to the rational scrutiny of our court system, they fall apart. As the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Elsewhere I wrote about the imaginary “threat” to religious freedom should the states allow marriage equality. The decision by the appeals court Thursday makes it clear that this threat is nonexistent. Voters can pass a thousand amendments to their constitutions or block every legislative action to allow same-sex couples the protections afforded to all other families, but they cannot stop the holy actions of faithful religious communities that will continue to bless these marriages and their families. What these anti-equality groups do is spend millions of dollars in campaigns that eventually fail the test of history. In a generation from now such actions be seen with the same shame in which we look at miscegenation laws of the past. (bold emphasis added is mine - DG)

What is noteworthy about the parallels to miscegenation laws, and to the larger Jim Crow racist laws, is that they have consistently been conservatives political policies, whether Republican or Democratic conservatives.  The  lesser known 'northern strategy, along with the better known 'southern strategy' of the 'old right' within the Republican party solidified former conservative Democrats under the shameful conservative 'new right' Republican banner, as they drove out the more moderate Republicans who joined with mainstream Democrats to pass the civil rights legislation for which our modern, ultra-conservative Republicans falsely try to claim credit.

The extremist, racist, Tea-Party and Religious Right crazy conservatives in the modern Republican party share no credit whatsoever with the Republican party of Lincoln, or the moderate Republicans who joined with LBJ and Hubert Humphrey to treat all Americans as free an equal people.

They have added those additional belligerents, the intolerant members of the Religious Right, and the Islamophobes and Homophobes to their ranks of Racists in their assorted sordid culture wars.  History will reflect badly on those contributing millions to try to keep good, decent people from having the civil right of marriage and family.  It is a badge of shameful intolerance in the making. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves now; it's not too late for them to see the error of their ways, or to change their evil contribution to American history as backward people who hate and fear people wrongly.