The traditional definition of marriage continues to suffer at the hands of a few elites. As we have noticed many times before, the American people, irrespective of political affiliation, overwhelmingly support God’s model for marriage. When the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996, it had strong bi-partisan support (the vote was 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate) and was signed into law by liberal Democrat President Bill Clinton.
Every time Americans have had the opportunity to defend traditional marriage at the ballot box, they have done so. Yet, a small number of elite leaders seem adamant about forcing every state to promote same-sex “marriage,” no matter what the voters say.
U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, of radical global warming and other bizarre rulings infamy, is the latest to join the coterie of elites who dismiss the legitimate beliefs of the majority of Americans, who believe marriage should be the union between one man and one woman, as mere bigotry.
It is clear from this decision that Judge White was emboldened by the recent decision of President Obama and Attorney General Holder to “cease its legal defense” of DOMA.
The case is Golinski v. U.S., and it follows the same fact pattern we have seen activists use in other states to challenge DOMA. A lesbian couple was “married” in California in that lawless period of time where the state forced same-sex “marriage” on Californians, sparking the reaffirmation of the traditional definition of marriage through a constitutional amendment. One of the “spouses” is a federal employee who applies for federal benefits for the other “spouse” and brings a lawsuit when they are rejected, because DOMA defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman for federal purposes.
The law dictates these cases should be simple. DOMA was actually enacted to facilitate that. There obviously is a rational basis for the government to choose to be involved with the one-man-one-woman marriage relationship, as it has the potential for procreation. The state’s interest just in that regard is enough to meet legal standards, although there are many other interests at play.
This is not a mere opinion, but a biological fact. Yet Judge White, as other activist in the past, dismisses it, because he says so. Think about that; one man in a black robe has the power to distort the motives of millions and declare them bigots, based on his personal feelings about a particular subject.
But this is not just another DOMA case. Judge White does something other judges usually refuse to do and that is to declare homosexuals a “suspect class” deserving “heightened scrutiny.” In order to make that determination, he must determine several factors, including a history of discrimination, the immutability of the characteristic, and whether or not the group is politically powerless.
Homosexuals, as a group, unequivocally fail that test. For example, they have for years – and to no avail – tried to identify a “gay” gene so they fail the test of immutability. And CWA has documented their political power; to say that homosexuals as a group are politically powerless is simply a joke. And yet, Judge White’s nonsensical reasoning argues that because they haven’t been successful enough, they are still powerless, no matter that the incredible political resources they have today are second to none.
Classifying homosexuals as a “suspect class” in law has enormous ramifications that, of course, will eventually come to fruition, even though no one wants to talk about it at the moment. If homosexual sex is to be classified as equal to race, should those who engage in it get some type of “affirmative action” also?
Every time we bring up the issue of polygamy, for example, the activists get all bent out of shape, because they know their logic sustains its approval, yet they believe the public is not ready to accept that. So they simply scoff disingenuously at anyone who brings the topic up for discussion.
This case shows us how this incremental strategy has paid great dividends for them. Golinski‘s foundation rests in Lawrence v. Texas, the notorious case in which the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law against sodomy. At the time that case was decided, we said same-sex “marriage” would be the logical stepchild of such a politically-motivated decision.
And what happened? They scoffed at us. “That will never happen,” they said. “They’re just bigots.” Justice Scalia wrote about it in his dissent in Lawrence:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.1
I guess there is a bit of the old prophet in Justice Scalia, because this decision is full of references to that landmark case. And it should be no surprise that it has been widely cited in every single case trying to justify same-sex “marriage”.
Next on the horizon are cases challenging polygamy laws on the basis of Lawrence and all the same-sex “marriage” cases.
This case will probably help if it is not swiftly overturned. As previously mentioned, other cases challenging DOMA tried to avoid classifying them as a “suspect class,” but the progression continues, and today Judge White does not shy away from it.
He concludes that, because homosexuals are a suspect class, “heightened scrutiny” should apply. That means that DOMA must be “substantially related” to the furthering of an “important government interest.” Of course, DOMA should easily survive that test as well, but as we mentioned before, this is a significant distinction that will have very tangible consequences moving forward.
The kicker is that Judge White still goes on to say that, even if he were to apply the “rational basis” test, which requires the law to be “rationally related” to a “legitimate government” interest, DOMA would fail.
He writes, “The Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.”
Really? There is not an ounce of legitimacy for the government to try to encourage that children grow up in an environment where they have their mom and dad to love and support them when they are most vulnerable?
Any reasonable person can see that it is simply preposterous for a judge to say all that motivates supporters of traditional marriage is animus towards homosexuals. Most children that have grown up without their mother or father can attest to the difficulties they experienced.
The fact of the matter is that this is a cultural and political issue and, as we discussed, homosexuals are slowly winning over the culture. Let them continue that work and change the laws if they are able to convince their fellow citizens. We will make that case as to why God’s model for marriage is best.
But for a judge to sit in his mighty chair and declare traditional marriage supporters “bigots” is irresponsible and reprehensible. Just as they tried to cut off the debate of the beginning of life in Roe, they want to cut off this debate among citizens to impose their values on all.
End Notes
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 590 (2003).