• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Protecting Marriage and the Rule of Law

    The decision by the U.S. Navy to rescind new guidelines that would have permitted same-sex marriages to be performed in navy chapels in certain states is a simple recognition of the law of the land. The fact that the rescission came only after pressure from Members of Congress who wrote to the Defense Department on May 6 requesting the enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a sober reminder that the Obama Administration continues to play fast and loose with this area of public policy. A quick review is in order.

    On February 23, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to the Speaker of the House that he had concluded, and President Obama concurred, that DOMA is unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. As several commentators pointed out, this formal abandonment of DOMA in the federal courts came only after a series of actions by the Obama Justice Department that actively undermined the best arguments for DOMA in the pending federal lawsuits against it. Specifically, Justice Department attorneys disavowed the stated interest of Congress in passing DOMA to recognize the procreative purposes of marriage; DOJ also failed to cite prior U.S. Supreme Court precedents that turned aside the constitutional arguments against traditional marriage.

    Even as it backed away from DOMA, the Obama Administration invited Congress to step forward and assume its legal defense while making assurances that it would continue to enforce DOMA as a matter of policy until its constitutionality was resolved.

    Similar assertions had also been made in the context of the repeal of the law against open military service by homosexuals. In fact, last November, when the Defense Department’s working group unveiled its recommendations regarding implementation of a prospective repeal of the law, it noted repeatedly that DOMA made it “legally impermissible” to treat same-sex couples as married under the military’s family policy.

    The report included an acknowledgement of the federal court cases challenging DOMA and referred to them as an “evolving legal landscape”—a somewhat inaccurate locution given the fact that most state and federal court challenges to traditional marriage have been defeated. The working group made no mention of any service branch’s intention to begin hosting same-sex wedding services on military bases, though it did refer to a desire to “reshape” family-defined benefits into some type of domestic partner arrangement.

    Similar shenanigans are on display in the Obama Administration’s recent actions to undermine U.S. immigration policy regarding homosexual unions. On April 26, Holder issued an order vacating a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals to deport an Irish citizen who has been living illegally in the United States. Holder directed the board, which is under his department’s jurisdiction, to review the deportation and “determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case.” This is, to say the least, an odd manner of enforcing the law.

    The decision announced by the navy chief of chaplains, Admiral Mark Tidd, to suspend his previous guidance until further notice brings the navy policy back into line with those of the other service branches, which had rightly maintained their fealty to DOMA and the rule of law. As Representative Todd Akin and 62 colleagues wrote to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, “It is not the place of any citizen of this country to pick and choose which laws they are going to obey. We expect citizens sworn to defend those laws to set the example in their application.”

    And we expect the Department of Justice to defend the laws as written too, but that seems too much to ask.

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Protecting Marriage and the Rule of Law

    1. Paul says:

      DOMA says the federal government will not recognize marriages of same sex couples. It does not prohibit government employees from participating in, or even officiating a same sex marriage. This is the problem with discrimination. If some small amount of discrimination is tolerated, it quickly becomes more and more discrimination. We are now to the point, where an author actually argues that a federal law restricts the ability of federal employees to practice the tenets of their faith in direct opposition to the first amendment. How un-american.

    2. Carson says:

      Heritage Foundation,

      Your positions on social issues are unprincipled and inconsistent. When it comes to health care reform you support states rights and attack any bill that gives the federal government more authority. Yet when it comes to individual liberties enshrined in the constitution and the equal protection clause you advocate giving congress the right to attack citizens liberty and legislate ideological positions. The article above amounts to this: "the federal government should be allowed to control and pass bills dictating who american citizens can and cannot marry." By defending DOMA the heritage foundation is advocating for the breach of constitutionally protected liberties. You cannot remain a credible organization if you cherry pick legal positions that ultimately support an expansion of federal powers to regulate private conduct. Since your position on DOMA is inconistent with the proclaimed mission of your organization, I can think of no reason for the post above other than animus or homophobia. Heterosexuals are divorcing at such high rates, many Christian churches have chosen to allow gay marriage. DOMA may be the current law of the land, but like many laws before it which were based on ignorance and hatred, it will not and should not withstand the test of time. The constitution preserves for our citizens the right to liberty and equal protection under the law. It does not grant the federal government the right to dictate decisions about what citizens do with that liberty.

    3. Larry Welch, Idaho says:

      Sorry, Paul, but your post makes clear that you failed to grasp the point of the Heritage piece. It's about the rule of law.

    4. MFEZ, Pittsburgh PA says:

      Go Hungary – maybe our leaders can grow the same spine as Hungarian legislatures as with their new constitution that bans same sex marrainge and protects the unborn from conception.

      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-provisi

      May 9, 2011 (pop.org) – In a move that has shocked the European Union and drawn heavy fire from pro-choice and homosexual activist groups around the world, Hungary approved a new constitution that bans gay marriage, and protects human life from the moment of conception.

      Maybe we can follow suit.

    5. YnotNOW says:

      Paul – how is only allowing official Naval Chapels to be used for Legally recognized purposes, invasion of someone's First Ammendment rights? You are twisting the meaning of words in order to justify your personal opinion. Enforcing the law equally is not discrimination.

    6. Col (ret) Duane Hard says:

      The Sec of the Navy, the CNO and the current CJCS ( also a Navy Admiral) should all be told to resign ( the Sec) and retire ( the other two) for violating their Oath of Office which requires them to " Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States". Their "social expermentation of the Navy" is in direct violation of the Constitution.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×