|Pro-family activism that makes a difference!|
Analysis of July 8 Defense of Marriage (DOMA) ruling
POSTED: July 21, 2010
The ruling by liberal Judge Joseph L. Tauro was the result of a strategic effort by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and the publicly subsidized homosexual law group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). Each of them concurrently filed a separate lawsuit narrowly targeting specific sections of the DOMA law.
GLAD's arguments before Tauro took place in May, and MassResistance covered it, including an exclusive video of their press conference where they outlined their positions.
Over the last several years 31 states have voted on the "gay marriage" issue. The homosexual movement has been unable to win a single one. So they went back to their tried-and-true approach: Getting activist judges to rule in their favor and strike down laws.
It's evident that this was very carefully planned by GLAD and the Massachusetts Attorney General. As part of their narrow strategy, they did not target the part of the bill regarding the rights of states not to recognize other states' same-sex "marriages." They targeted the sections of the DOMA law that deal with federal benefits and participation in federal programs, and the recognition of marriages in general by the federal government.
Coakley's lawsuit focused on highlighting the rights of states to define marriage, primarily using US Constitution's Tenth Amendment. GLAD's suit focused on the "equal protection" clause of the US Constitution. For the time being at least, everything fell into place for the sexual radicals. Judge Tauro agreed with virtually every point brought up by both of them.
The liberal Boston First District Federal Court -- which had previously issued the infamous David Parker ruling declaring that schools had the "right" and "obligation" to teach homosexuality to elementary school children (and that parents had no right to opt out) -- was the perfect venue for GLAD and Martha Coakley.
They were helped greatly by the fact that the Obama Justice Department made a pathetically weak effort to defend the law in court. Obama has said that he personally supports the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act because it's "discriminatory." In particular, it was pretty clear that they had no intention to bring up arguments that would anger the homosexual movement.
In a very real sense, this ruling is the homosexual movement's next step in using the force of law to force homosexuality into society nationwide, and to make the taxpayers subsidize it.
Technically, it only affects Massachusetts at this time, and it only includes homosexual "marriages" from Massachusetts. But this is seen as the takeoff point for pushing it into other states with further lawsuits.
Basically, it does the following:
This federal court ruling opens the doors for the homosexual movement to start lawsuits in other states and for those courts to use this decision as the legal basis for others. And for the time being, the federal government must change its whole range of operations to recognize those homosexual "marriages".
The Justice Department has 60 days to appeal the ruling. They are currently "reviewing the decision." And the Obama White House isn't commenting on it.
But the feeling among legal experts who've been interviewed in the media is that the Justice Department will appeal it, if only for public-relations reasons. It's such a contentious issue that it would not look good for them not to. But when it comes to actually fighting, you can count on another limp and uninspired performance by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's legal team.
Interestingly, liberal commentators have tried to downplay the importance of the ruling, saying that it doesn't have binding powers on same-sex "marriages" outside of Massachusetts until a higher federal court rules, or until courts in other states rule similarly. That is technically true. But the wheels are definitely in motion to use this case as leverage to make all of that that happen. A loss by the Justice Department on appeal will only accelerate that (another reason for Obama to appeal it).
In any case, it's a certainty that you will start to see lawsuits in states around the country, starting with the other states where homosexual "marriage" is "legal", using this ruling as its legal basis. The sexual radicals had to start somewhere, and Massachusetts was the logical and probably easiest place to start. Given the nature of our judicial system, they will find other activist judges to rule in their favor without too much trouble.
It's maddening and depressing to read the two DOMA rulings by Federal District Judge Joseph L. Tauro. He appears to have unquestioningly bought into the sexual radical agenda.
Tauro's decision on the Martha Coakley lawsuit (7/9/10)
Tauro's decision on the GLAD lawsuit (7/9/10)
But it goes deeper than that. To justify his decision Judge Tauro presents legal arguments and reasoning that are twisted and simply absurd, or at best far-fetched. One wonders how a federal judge even has the nerve to even sign his name to them.
Some of the major problems that jump right out are:
We could go on and on throughout the 75 pages of Tauro's two written decisions. Suffice it to say that it would not stand up to any kind of normal scrutiny. He should be deeply ashamed of himself.
As you can imagine, reaction to the ruling was pretty swift.
Within hours of the ruling Attorney General Martha Coakley called a press conference at her downtown Boston office. The major Boston media was invited to hear her comments on the victory. MassResistance also showed up!
ABOVE: Media invited to AG's office for DOMA press conference.
At the press conference, Coakley talked about how the DOMA law "has no purpose but to discriminate" and because of that the federal government was forced to use a "restrictive definition of marriage." Thus, she concluded, this is "a victory for Massachusetts and a victory for Civil Rights." Needless to say, none of the questions from the mainstream press challenged any of those assumptions.
AG Martha Coakley's press release on the DOMA ruling
But right after the press conference, TV crews interviewed Brian Camenker of MassResistance for comment. One of those clips was used by CNN in their national spot. (Of course, they didn't necessarily use the comments we would have preferred, but it still made our point.) Later that evening, National Public Radio us called us for a quick comment.
Radio debate. Brian Camenker of MassResistance was an hour-long guest on the WBZ radio talk show "Nightside" which reaches 38 states each evening.
It was originally set up for us to debate with GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) on the DOMA ruling, but GLAD declined to participate. (GLAD doesn't like debates where they actually get challenged, we've noticed!) But the talk radio host that night was a pro-gay marriage liberal, and the callers were about evenly split. It was very contentions evening to say the least. But we didn't back down at all. The audience definitely heard points of view they probably hadn't heard before. We think you'll enjoy listening to this radio show.