Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

The 1973 Founding

May 31st, 2012 by Adam G.

The First Circuit has struck down DOMA because of Constitutional law dating back to 1973.

Judicial liberalism is like a geometry class. You’re given a result you’re told is true and told to figure out some way to get there.

This is of a piece with the near-fanatical intolerance of the SSM movement. No law, no election, no argument can stand in the way of forcing us all to recognize it.

A few years ago I argued with various Mormon liberals that we needed to constitutionalize DOMA. I was told to stop being so paranoid.

Now I am told that the intolerance of the gay marriage movement shouldn’t scare me, since it certainly won’t extend to violating religious liberty and private consciences. Oh? Oh?

I hope I don’t get the last laugh, because it won’t be a laughing matter.

Comments (6)
Filed under: Deseret Review | Tags: , , , , ,
May 31st, 2012 09:39:36

John Mansfield
May 31, 2012

Besides Mormon liberals, their was some number of senators who told us they voted against the constitutional amendment because DOMA was already the law.

There is so much lying from the advocates of homosexuality. Perhaps it stems from the fundamental lie that homosexuality is pretty much the same thing as normal sexuality.

John Mansfield
May 31, 2012

How often does that “lack of a permissable federal interest” argument prevail or even get a hearing?

May 31, 2012

I finally found some primary source material to use as a reference to many of my comments on the subject. A 1978 article by Dr. Charles Socarides:

The section titled “Historical Review” describes how the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was mainly a political one. Please read, at the least, from that point through the end of the article.

Some might not agree with Dr. Socarides, but at least the article gives some needed historical background to the discussion of homosexuality, and to the evolution of societal views.

The endnotes point to more primary sources on the history.

May 31, 2012

What will this do to states under the 1st Circuit, that have constitutional amendments establishing marriage between man and woman? Will this ruling vacate those state amendments?

Adam Greenwood
May 31, 2012

Not directly. It opens those amendments to an argument that they violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the federal Constitution.

Michael Towns
May 31, 2012

I’m pretty sure that only the Supreme Court can vacate or overturn a state constitutional amendment, at least as the final arbiter.

Other than that, it would take another state amendment to pass to invalidate the previous amendment. Think Prohibition at the Federal level.

Leave a Reply