You probably already know that President Obama says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and yet he opposes DOMA, which says...that marriage is between a man and a woman. But in reading through a recent news item, I found out that even as Obama extended some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, he held back on others. Also, shack-up both-sexes couples are now asking for the same benefits. Will all couples be treated equally? My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt ordered compensation for a same-sex couple to correct what the court considered an injustice. One of the two men works for the federal government; he and his partner got a neutered marriage license during California's five month window before the California Marriage Amendment was adopted. Benefits were not extended by the employer (the federal government) to the partner. They sued. I discuss this and the LATimes.com blog entry reporting it - over at The Opine Editorials.

There was a lot of coverage over the last several days of the homosexuality and gender confusion advocacy events in the USA's capitol, and President Obama's action - or lack thereof. The themes seem to focus on marriage law and military service. Even the Los Angeles Times editorial board recognizes the importance of prioritizing, even as they say that Obama "owes gays more support".

As anxious as we are to see gay rights recognized throughout this country, it also is important for the administration to set priorities and make progress in a politically strategic way.

Still, they call on him to offer a timeline.

Then they go on to bemoan confusion of marriage laws from state to state, citing the Texas divorce case. Whose fault is that? Most states affirm bride+groom marriage. If we're going to make everything the same, let's go with the majority.

Then they go on to dismiss the concerns of the "Yes on 1" campaign in Maine, before going on to a general plea for Obama to do the bidding of homosexuality advocates.

Here is the paper's Katherine Skiba previewing Obama’s speech to the (LGBT) Human Rights Campaign at a fundraiser.

And here is her article reporting on the speech afterwards.

He acknowledged in his remarks that some gays have been dissatisfied with the pace of his reforms.

There will always be a contingent that is "dissatisfied", no matter what. It is how they make their living.

In an address that was at times poignant and reflected on the sometimes "painful and heartbreaking" experiences gays face, Obama said he recognized that a gay relationship was "just as admirable as a relationship between a man and a woman."

This is his opinion, but he doesn't back it with anything. It is a mere assertion. However, it is demonstrable that both-sexes relationships contribute to society in ways that no same-sex pairing can.

The uneven track record to date has Cleve Jones, 54, a former aide to late gay rights leader Harvey Milk, fed up with what he termed "incrementalism" and tired of politicians telling activists to prioritize their demands.

Well, yes, how dare legislators focus on war, terrorists getting nuclear weapons, and major investment fraud when they could be focusing on whether or not the laws make someone get all tingly inside?

On Thursday the House passed a bill that would broaden the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays.

Really? Just "gays"? Or anyone of any sexual orientation targeted due to their perceived sexual orientation? And if so, will it protect a husband with a polygamist orientation from assault by his lawful wife? if she throws something at him, will that be a hate crime?

Obama noted Saturday that the bill was named after Matthew Shepard, the gay college student whose killing in Wyoming in 1998 galvanized the gay rights movement.

I condemn murder for any reason, but notice this was back in 1998. So has there been no other murder of a homosexual person in our union motivated by their sexual orientation in 11 years (I mean by someone other than another homosexual, committing what has been referred to as "homocide")? Then I'd say things are good, and a much bigger threat to deal with would be substance abuse in the "community". But for comparison, I note there have been Christians killed this very year here in the USA due to their religion.

Associated Press writer Brett Zongker reported on the march, pointing out...

The weekend also included political training at several D.C. universities for young activists to learn how to build support and lobby lawmakers at home.

This is why we can't let up. We can't let a tiny minority dictate the terms of our lives. We must continue to demonstrate what is and is not marriage, why marriage is important, and that both mother and fathers are important.

And here is Katherine Skiba again, reporting on the march.

They are seeking "full federal equality" and singling out issues pertaining to marriage, adoption, military service and the workplace.

I really can’t see where any individual is a lacking federal equality, except when it comes to being able to be in the military and engage in homosexual sodomy without keeping it private. Do all of these people really want to serve in the military that badly?

A pair of young women wore T-shirts exhorting: "Legalize gay."

Where in the union is being gay illegal?

A subsequent article by her added more coverage.

Later, at the Capitol rally, Rosendahl told the crowd that 36 states allow housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and 29 states permit firings on those grounds.

I tend to side with property owners and employers being able to run their businesses as they see fit. But I also tend to agree that as long as the government is going to get involved to protect renters and employees from discrimination based on certain behaviors (such as religious practice), then there is an argument to be made to protect them based on certain sexual behaviors. However, the Bill of Rights specifically mentions freedom of religion.

Depriving gays of the right to wed, Rosendahl said, deprives them of 1,100 rights.

Yet again: People have access to legal marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.

The rally drew impassioned speakers, including NAACP Chairman Julian Bond

Yes, because the NAACP has outlived its purpose when it comes to law and government, anyway - so now it is involved in unrelated issues. These groups never go away. When they get what they want, they simply move on to another problem, even if it isn’t really a problem. The best thing the NAACP can do for the "ACP" would be to encourage "C" men and women to marry before having children, then stay married at least until the children are raised. Encouraging them to engage in homosexual behavior and tear down heteronormative structure won't help with the "ACP".

Bond linked gay rights to civil rights.

"Black people of all people should not oppose equality, and that is what marriage is all about," he said.

We should all be treated equally by the government as human beings – regardless of circumstances of our birth or characteristics we are born with. However, the law often treats different behaviors differently. That is what law is all about.

"We have a lot of real and serious problems in this country, and same-sex marriage is not one of them."

And yet there you are rallying for it. So you are giving a speech about something you don't consider to be important?

You can read what I wrote about what has been going on in California over at The Opine Editorials.

Massachusetts, which lead the way in screwing up education in this country, is suing the federal government over DOMA, trying to continue lead the way in abolishing true marriage licensing.  Meanwhile, it looks like the people of Maine are going to get a vote on their state's marriage licensing.  My comments are over at The Opine Editorials.

In the U.S. Department of Justice's recent defense of DOMA, they noted that there have been marriages performed elsewhere, including between close relatives and someone underage, that American courts have not recognized.

This has elicited apoplectic responses from marriage neutering advocates, who regularly express outrage that homosexual behavior would be compared to consensual incest.

Perhaps the marriage neutering advocates are being bigots?  I explain over at The Opine Editorials.

Sadly, it looks like the media coverage has gotten to the point where we're just going to get the same regurgitation of appeals to emotion, without any new compelling arguments. Most newsrooms are going to continue to quote same-sex couples with children that they did not make together (but the news will not ask the obvious), talking about how "it's not fair - after all, we love each other" - and if they quote a marriage defender, it will either be one of the official campaign people, or someone who, it will be noted, is been divorced and who will not be quoted with anything other than an appeal to the Bible. At best, it is going to be cast imprecisely as "equality vs. tradition" or "rights vs. tradition". They have their boilerplate script.

That's what I conclude in my new entry over at The Opine Editorials, asking, What Does Brown Do For You?  Yes, Jerry Brown is making headlines again.

I cover it in my latest post over at The Opine Editorials.

Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, who failed to gain much of a vote as the Libertarian Party's 2008 candidate for POTUS despite McCain being the Republican nominee, has a commentary in today's Los Angeles Times calling for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which he wrote, and President Clinton signed into law).

The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples.

There's nothing about DOMA that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples, and or applying that to taxation or immigration or other areas.  Congress can pass a law that does just that.

I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned.

So it should be repealed?  I think we should repeal hundreds of other laws that aren't working out as planned, first.  Let's have priorities.  I don't see anything good being gained from repealing DOMA.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state.

What is the problem there?  That was one of goals, wasn't it?

Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

How can that be when California subsequently enacted a domestic partnership law that treats domestic partners as spouses?

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states.

So do I.  But when you have one state whose judiciary is not following limited-government principles and forcing neutered marriage licensing on the people, why should other states have to accept their error?  I’m pretty sure if I get a hunting license for one place, I can't use that hunting license everywhere - even with the full faith and credit clause.

It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business.

It isn't in the marriage business.  States are.  The federal government recognizes marriages that are licensed by the states.

The paper is taking comments about this one on their website.  Click through to add yours to the circus.  This one, by "plaasjaapie" at 9:35 AM caught my eye:

"...I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states." I seriously doubt that, Bob. Are you willing to repeal that huge piece of federal legislation that placed serious federal penalties on defaulters on child support payments ordered by state courts that you passed back in 1992? Let me take leave to doubt that very seriously.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board wants California Attorney General Jerry Brown to follow rare examples and argue against the California marriage amendment instead of defending the will of those who elected him.

As California's top lawyer, Brown is bound by his oath to defend the state's laws. But in this case, does that mean defending the will of the voters, or defending the Constitution from the will of the voters?

That's a false dichotomy.  The voters legitimately amended the constitution, and that amendment is not inconsistent with either the federal Constitution or that of the state.

The question is whether fundamental change has to mean extensive and elaborate change, or whether it's enough that a ban on gay marriage deprives a group that has long been a target of discrimination of an essential constitutional right.

It wasn't a "ban on gay marriage" - and neither side should say it was.  It was a restoring of the legal definition of marriage for licensing purposes.  Obtaining a marriage license is in no way an essential constitutional right.

The court overstepped their authority.  We reaffirmed our right to vote on certain things.  It is valid and legitimate.  The California constitution has been amended.  Move on to challenging the federal DOMA.  Use Connecticut if you have to.  California has been decided.

So, if I'm a bigot, as some have said, for thinking that state-issued marriage licenses should be for bride-groom combos, then doesn't that make Bill Clinton, Biden, and Obama bigots, too?

It’s the one institution in which the Left is okay with excluding women.  Just try to form a legally sanctioned organization while openly barring women from joining.  Won’t be allowed.  Unless that organization is a marriage.

I’ve been trying to come up with decent analogies to help explain why I believe it is important to keep the legal definition of marriage in line with the traditional societal practice of marriage.  Marriage is a unique institution, though, so analogies tend to break down.

The issue is so polarizing now that it is difficult to convince the other side that I’m not a bigot and do not hate people who are gay or consider them less than worthy of having their rights protected.  But I like to try.

There are different people providing the momentum to change the legal definition of marriage.  There are the extreme Leftists who want to tear down just about any structure other than the state so that we’ll be dependent on the state, and they figure anything that devalues true marriage is a good thing.  If marriage means anything, it really means nothing.  There are the radical homosexuality advocates who believe that having the term “marriage” legally affixed to same-sex couplings will advance their promotion of homosexuality as equal or even superior to heterosexuality.  There are the ordinary gay people who think that they are somehow being slighted because they can’t marry the person they are “in love” with.  There are the friends and families of these people who want to see their loved ones happy, and their loved ones have told them that applying the term “marriage” legally to their relationships will do it.  And, finally, there are the profiteers who think they will make more money if more people can legally “marry” (like divorce lawyers).

Most of these people will not consider any defenses I’d have to offer for my position.  The people who might are the ordinary gay people and their friends and families.  They’ll likely still disagree with me, but perhaps some of them will see that my motive is not hate or bigotry.

One of the problems we have created as a society is that we have already devalued marriage through several channels.  Socially, too many of us have reduced it to some sort of “next level” for any romantic relationship, as if that relationship was somehow more successful because it was “taken to the next level”, even if it ends quickly in a divorce.  I link this phenomenon to fornication, shacking up, and having/raising children out of wedlock.  Some people think it is okay to fornicate and have kids out of wedlock if they plan to get married.  There are women shack up with men because they hope it will lead to marriage.  A man and a woman can be doing everything that traditionally only married couples did with social acceptance, and they – more often prompted by the woman – will decide they should take the relationship “to the next level” by getting married.  Since they are already shacking up and raising kids, the feeling is that marriage is merely symbolic, but they still want that symbol to “vindicate” their fornication and shacking up.

Therein comes an argument for the same-sex couple who wants that “symbolic” stamp of approval and recognition of their relationship.  Since the rest of society has separated childbearing, sex, and shacking up from marriage, then marriage is something unrelated to those things and it mostly about esteeming the romantic relationship, right?

But the thing is – a romantic relationship that doesn’t end in marriage is a not automatically a failure.  You can fail to keep your chastity, you can fail to keep your self-respect, you can fail to honor the other person and your future spouse – to be sure.  Those are failures.  But breaking up with someone who isn’t right a fit for you beyond that moment does not mean the relationship was a failure, especially if you enjoyed each other in a wholesome way and grew and learned important things about yourself and life.  My point is that not all relationships should involve marriage.

Conversely, marriage, from a legal perspective, is not about esteeming a romance.  It is about perpetuating a stable society.  The law really doesn’t care if there is no romance or passion.

My latest analogy, like most of them, involves getting the other side to see our point about marriage meaning something specific (something that involves both a man and a woman), and the law should only recognize that specific thing as marriage.  So here it is…

HIV is a certain kind of disease.  What if I were to form an organization with the purpose of fighting multiple sclerosis, and then demanded government funding and benefits assigned to HIV groups?  Isn’t fighting MS a valid cause?  Isn’t MS a disease?  Shouldn’t I get the same access to the same funding and the same benefits and the same social standing as anti-HIV organizations?  The answer to the first two questions is yes.  The answer to the last question is no, because MS is not HIV.  I am free to form an organization that fights HIV, no matter how much my heart is in fighting MS.  That I choose to form an MS-fighting organization does not mean that HIV organizations should be forced to welcome my organization as one of theirs.

Nonprofits get certain benefits and can call themselves nonprofits, while for-profits can’t use that designation.  Why?  Because they are different kinds of organizations.

I couldn’t get a fishing license and then go out and hunt a deer, no matter how much I prefer venison over fish.

It would be fraud for me to proclaim that I was organizing a Gay Pride parade and then only let anti-gay groups march.

I can’t sell meat and claim that the dish is vegetarian.  I can’t sell pork and claim that it is kosher.

Why?

Words mean things.

I could get a really good lobbying effort going that would change the laws so that I could legally sell meat dishes with a vegetarian label, but would that make the dishes vegetarian?  No.  It would devalue the legal term by watering down its meaning, and the general rule of law would be damaged because it would be in conflict with reality.

The legal definition of marriage, throughout every known society, has always been about joining the two sexes.  As the same-sex “marriage” activists point to previous acceptances of polygamy, or prohibitions against “interracial” marriage, they actually draw attention to the fact that while laws about marriage have changed in the past, throughout all of those changes it has never been in doubt that marriage requires a bride and a groom.

When I am asked why I “oppose ‘gay marriage’” I need to remember to explain that I’m in favor of keeping the law in line with reality, because marriage isn’t about validating a relationship.  It is about society and forming a microcosm of that society by including both of the sexes.  I believe that both women and men are essential to society, and neither one should be excluded when forming that societal unit.

This Los Angeles Times headline gets it wrong:

New York, Georgia Courts Rule Against Gay Marriage
The state rulings are seen as big setbacks for rights activists, and may have wide ramifications.
By Richard Fausset and Ellen Barry - Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

There is no such thing as "gay marriage", so it can't be ruled against.  It's like saying the court ruled against dry water.  Marriage, throughout history, even with polygamy and other variations, has always been something involving BOTH sexes together.

Quotes:
>>Opponents of [redefining] marriage see Thursday's rulings as evidence they are gaining the upper hand in state-by-state battles over one of the nation's most contentious cultural issues. They especially welcome the victories after the U.S. Senate last month did not approve a constitutional amendment banning [counterfeit] marriages nationwide.<<

The thing is, there shouldn't need to be an amendment to protect marriage.  The legal definition of marriage should stay the same unless and until elected legislators vote to change it.  And yet activist judges who want to counterfeit the most basic of human institutions have made such an amendment "necessary".

>>The Georgia case dealt with whether a state [counterfeit] marriage ban — approved in 2004 by 76% of voters — violated a state rule that ballot measures can address only one issue.

Lambda Legal and others argued that the ballot language appeared to ban [counterfeit]  marriages as well as gay civil unions. The attorneys said that was unfair to voters who might oppose [counterfeit] marriage but support civil unions with some marriage-like benefits.<<

How is that unfair?  You either like the way the measure is written or you don't.  You can vote yes or no or abstain.

>>In a strong dissent, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, joined by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, condemned the majority decision as a step away from New York's "proud tradition of affording equal rights."<<
 
Everyone has equal access to marriage.  I know, I know... not everyone wants to exercise that access, but it doesn't make the statement any less true.  I know it is hard for some people to accept, but there is a difference between men and women, and that difference has something to do with what makes marriage, marriage.  Why is marriage the only institution where Leftists think it is okay to exclude one of the sexes?

>>Most New Yorkers, Kaye wrote, "can look back on, or forward to, their wedding as among the most significant events of their lives."<<

So who is stopping people from having ceremonies, exchanging rings, and throwing parties?  If you want the memories, you can still have them.  Just don't counterfeit something as important as marriage.

>>Though Congress passed a law banning federal recognition of [counterfeit] marriage in 1996, the conservatives believe that only a constitutional amendment would be certain to keep the issue out of judges' hands.<<

Don't forget that Bill Clinton signed that law.  I guess Dizzy Dean thinks Clinton is a bigot, too.

>>For gay-rights advocates such as Buckel, the strategy is to chip away at anti-gay-marriage legislation state by state.<<

Translation: He wants to use radical activist judges to force all of the rest of us to accept counterfeits.

>>A San Francisco Superior Court judge last year struck down state laws that limited marriage to "a man and a woman" as unconstitutional, saying they violated a person's fundamental right to marry and illegally discriminated on the basis of gender.<<
 
A "right to marry"?  There would be a lot more homeless cats if we really had a "right" to marry (it's an old maid joke).  A marriage license means societal approval, and nobody has a right to societal approval for whatever they decide to do.  If society decides to willingly grant that approval, that's one thing.