Spokane7
65°
February 26, 2011 in Opinion
Editorial: White House right not to back Defense of Marriage Act
“Our country is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan
Harlan’s homage to equal protection under the law was stirring, but not stirring enough to win over his colleagues when the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 against him in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson.
For more than half a century thereafter, America would operate under the Jim Crow doctrine that providing different classes of citizens with segregated but presumably equal accommodations – railroad cars, buses, schools – satisfied the 14th Amendment’s notions of equality. In 1954, 43 years after Harlan died, a later court vindicated him. Under the landmark school-desegration ruling in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, separate is not equal.
Conquering injustice is never a quick fix. Especially the rigid, emotional kind of injustice inspired by race. Or sexual orientation.
So the Obama administration’s surprise announcement that it no longer will defend the Defense of Marriage Act clearly won’t end the discrimination that denies same-sex couples the legal protections attached to marriage. Not right away, at least. But it gives added momentum to an emerging movement toward understanding.
The Supreme Court already has struck down a Colorado state constitutional amendment that prohibited government from protecting gays’ and lesbians’ rights. It has overturned antiquated anti-sodomy laws. A handful of states have legalized same-sex marriages. The American military is no longer hampered by Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Opinion polls repeatedly reveal growing acceptance – especially among the young – of gays’ and lesbians’ expectations of equal rights.
DOMA declares that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that one state doesn’t have to – and the federal government must not – recognize the same-sex marriages solemnized in another.
For the White House to acknowledge the obvious, that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation contradicts the 14th Amendment, is a significant advancement in the national debate. Without a substantial relationship to some important government interest, the Justice Department can’t rationalize fighting in court to preserve an unworthy statute.
In time, preferably much less than half a century, the attitudes that resist this progress will seem as embarrassingly old-fashioned as the segregationist values of Plessy v. Ferguson.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
ChefGus/ John Olsen on February 26 at 6:05 a.m.
Thank you for your editorial … I am a Proud parent of a married lesbian who lives California. When I was first married in 1966 to a Japanese woman from Hawaii our marriage was not recognized in the Southern States. DOMA is a prime example of the hypocrisy of folks who say they do not want big government running their lives and then pass legislation to run people’s lives. The anti miscegenation laws were obviously a complete farce in that the “rainbow” of skin color was a direct result of closeted racist white’s having children with african slaves. Strom Thurmond comes to mind as the epitome of hypocritical living. Larry Craig of course comes to mind as well.
“Not Defending” is not quite the same as “repealing” but it is another step along the way toward actually abiding by the constitution. John Olsen
hawken on February 26 at 9:49 a.m.
The article fails on two huge points of fact:
1- “homosexual marriage” is NOT a protected class as defined by the US Supreme Court. To compare that with being born black is not only a disgrace and indescribable insult to African Americans and other people of color, it is a direct attack upon the family and the institution of marriage that is by nature and “Law”, signed by Clinton, defined as union between one woman and one man. What Obama has done is pure political prostitution to pacify his base.
2- The president of the United States is and should be the “chief law enforcement officer”. He is not, and should not be the congress, the supreme court and the president all wrapped into one liberal person.
Obama’s disregard for the balance of power, as established in the Constitution is obvious by this act of His Majesty, the King.
That people can justify this traitorous act, on the false premise that “homosexual marriage” is equivalent to being born black is beyond comprehension.
valleyman on February 26 at 12:42 p.m.
John, while I believe you are right in substance, I believe Obama is very wrong to do what he is doing.
He determined on his own the law was ” unconstitutional” and thus won’t defend it. I thought we had separation of powers so that the Supreme Court decided what was and wasn’t constitutional and the congress was to pass laws and the president was to enforce them.
While I do not support gay marriage, I would not seek to impose my morality on others. The president is wrong however to circumvent the law of the land without letting the courts decide it’s legality first.
Patanjali on February 26 at 1:57 p.m.
While the Supreme Court does decide which laws are constitutional the President through his appointed Attorney General decides which cases to appeal through the courts. The decision to not appeal a lower federal court’s determination that the Defense of Marriage act is not constitutional is entirely within the presidential powers.
misjustice on February 26 at 8:56 p.m.
If heterosexuals want to “defend” marriage I suggest that they quit having multiple marriages and divorces. People like the flaming gas bag Limpballs, and Newt Gingrich come to mind; hypocrites with their multiple marriages that want to deny homosexuals the ability to legally marry the person they love.
Just sayin’.
; )
Dazzeetrader11 on February 28 at 8:35 p.m.
Men marrying wimins is a fur cry from mins marrying mins or wimins marrying wimins J.
Just sayin…..
flutieflakes on March 02 at 11:55 p.m.
“The president is wrong however to circumvent the law of the land”
How is this circumventing the law? The president isn’t legally required to defend any particular bills.