Obama's betrayal of gay people.
Jun. 12th, 2009 02:41 pmI am not being hyperbolic. I am not referring to his lack of action. I am referring to his administration's brief in defense of DOMA given to the Supreme Court.
It states that since a state doesn't have to recognize marriages in another state that it considers incest or with minors, it can reasonably choose to not recognize same-sex marriages.
It states that it is reasonable to not recognize same-sex marriages because providing marriage rights to more people would cost more.
It does not violate equal protection: "Thus, because DOMA does not make a suspect classification or implicate a right that has been recognized as fundamental, it is necessarily subject to rational-basis scrutiny, see National Ass'n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000), which it satisfies."
It makes an argument which would have supported states not recognizing mixed-race marriages.
We are not a valid minority: "Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification."
We have no rights, therefore none are being infringed upon: "In short, therefore, DOMA, understood for what it actually does, infringes on no one's rights, and in all events it infringes on no right that has been constitutionally protected as fundamental, so as to invite heightened scrutiny."
It says we have the same marriage rights as everyone else because all we have to do to get the benefits of marriage is to marry someone of the opposite sex.
It says Loving v Virginia does not apply because this is about gays and it's ok to discriminate against gay people.
See for yourself.
I feel physically ill.
It states that since a state doesn't have to recognize marriages in another state that it considers incest or with minors, it can reasonably choose to not recognize same-sex marriages.
It states that it is reasonable to not recognize same-sex marriages because providing marriage rights to more people would cost more.
It does not violate equal protection: "Thus, because DOMA does not make a suspect classification or implicate a right that has been recognized as fundamental, it is necessarily subject to rational-basis scrutiny, see National Ass'n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000), which it satisfies."
It makes an argument which would have supported states not recognizing mixed-race marriages.
We are not a valid minority: "Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification."
We have no rights, therefore none are being infringed upon: "In short, therefore, DOMA, understood for what it actually does, infringes on no one's rights, and in all events it infringes on no right that has been constitutionally protected as fundamental, so as to invite heightened scrutiny."
It says we have the same marriage rights as everyone else because all we have to do to get the benefits of marriage is to marry someone of the opposite sex.
It says Loving v Virginia does not apply because this is about gays and it's ok to discriminate against gay people.
See for yourself.
I feel physically ill.