"No, I'm just not in favor of gay marriage. I live in New York. New York is a place with lots of gays, and I think it is great. But I'm not in favor of gay marriage." - Three times married Donald Trump, whose potential 2012 presidential run is being backed by GOProud. Before you dismiss his opinion as inconsequential, consider that Donald Trump is arguably the most famous New Yorker in the world and somebody whose support on this could have been quite useful.
About a dozen married straight couples were "umarried until gay marriage" yesterday in a Central Park protest staged by performance artist Reverend Billy. More photos here.-"Big tent fag hag and muslim bodily fluids swapper."
-"I have no tolerance for homo-tolerants. Boo & shame on you Ann. You are a Catholic."
-"There are still fools and idiots who think this woman is a conservative. I bet within a year she will become a Democrat. Maybe then, she will grab a brain, a hamburger, and Obama’s Birth Certificate."
-"I guess it’s OK to destroy the traditional family as long as you call yourself a conservative republican.
-"Fame is a terrible drug, Ann. Shame. You were once brilliant."
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible — officially sanctioned discrimination against one group of Americans imposed during an election year. President Obama seems to know that, or at least he has called on Congress to repeal it. So why do his government’s lawyers continue to defend the act in court? [snip] There are two crucial questions here. The overarching one, of course, is whether it is constitutional for the federal government to deny benefits to some people who are legally married under their state’s laws. Much also depends on the standard of review. How should courts evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people?Read the entire editorial.
On the merits, this should be an easy call. A law focusing on a group that has been subjected to unfair discrimination, as gay people have been, is supposed to get a hard test. It is presumed invalid unless the government proves that the officials’ purpose in adopting the law advances a real and compelling interest. That sort of heightened scrutiny would challenge the administration’s weak argument for upholding the act. It would also make it more difficult to sustain other forms of anti-gay discrimination, including state laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry. By now, such blatant discrimination should be presumed to be unconstitutional, and the Justice Department should finally say so.
