SIOUX FALLS, SD (KELO-AM) - It shouldn't come as any big surprise to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).
DOMA was initially passed by super majorities in Congress and signed into law in 1996. The law recognized marriage as being between a legal union between one man and one woman. It also denied federal marriage benefits to lawfully married gay men and women. At that time, some city and county clerks were issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in defiance of state laws.
The court today also let stand a lower-court ruling throwing out California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
Former president Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, was among the first to praise the court's decision. Clinton released a statement saying, "By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union."
I guess Clinton was against DOMA before he was for it. Clinton's statement today is typical of his presidency. He takes positions solely based on which way the political winds are blowing.
Unfortunately, the court's ruling will lead to further redefinitions of marriage. Now polygamists will fight for their day in court. If gender is irrelevant when defining marriage, then the number of people participating in the marriage is also irrelevant. If two consenting women can marry, then why not three consenting women?
Make no mistake. Today's ruling is just another liberal assault to strip away the traditional values that have defined our nation since its inception.
Justice Antonin Scalia was brilliant in his dissent. Scalia wrote:
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence -- indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose ithostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Read more of Scalia's blistering dissent HERE.
Greg Belfrage is heard mornings from 6am-9am on KELO Newstalk 1320 AM / 107.9 FM.