The BLAG Brief Gay Men Paid For
There are two cases before the Supreme Court relating to gay marriage. The president has waffled in vague support of overturning the laws. The congressional leadership saw fit to fund a “vigorous” defense. I put that in quote marks for I’m sure they are wishing to be very sure that gay relationships are not recognized, vigorously. The cost so far is $3 million dollars. Gay men (it’s really against gay men, who the hell are they kidding,) paid roughly $100,000,000,000 in taxes. 100 billion. And so, gay men are well covering the cost of the $3 million to defend the law against us. Not a heterosexual dime is in play here. Isn’t that wonderful? And so, what did we buy? Oh, it’s comical, in a tragic way. Let’s look at some of the stuff. I got to page 20 or so of the brief before I started laughing too hard. I can’t imagine that the illogical mush of the BLAG brief that gay men paid for really wins the day.
I put the text in italics, and my stuff regular – just to keep things, um, straight.
So, it opens:
For more than two centuries after our Nation’s Founding, every state and the federal government defined marriage as the legal union of a woman and a man. Indeed, “[u]ntil a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex.”
Let’s recast this in a George Wallace sort of way: “for more than two centuries after our Nation’s founding, every state and the federal government defined African-Americans and Indians as 3/5s persons…” – isn’t that charming, tradition! Nothing says “right” and “morally good” than “tradition”! For two centuries Jews were kept out of clubs and places too, yah, tradition. Women were kept from voting and owning property, tradition! Well, I guess this gay segregation tradition is come a time for ending, yes?
DOMA reflected Congress’ determination that each sovereign should be able to determine for itself how to define marriage for purposes of its own law. DOMA does not override or invalidate any sovereign’s decision to modify the definition of marriage, but it does preserve that prerogative for each sovereign. Section 2 of DOMA allows each state to decide for itself whether to retain the traditional definition without having another jurisdiction’s decision imposed upon it via full faith and credit principles. And Section 3 preserves the federal government’s ability to use the traditional definition of marriage for purposes of federal law and programs. It does so not by singling out any category of relationships for specific exclusion, but rather by clarifying what marriage means for purposes of federal law: It clarifies that, for purposes of federal law, “marriage” means the legal union of one man and one woman, and “spouse” means a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. 1 U.S.C. § 7.
“it does not by singling out any category for specific exclusion….” and I think, Hmm, who is specifically excluded from male-female relationship recognition, um, yah, man-man relationship. I guess that’s just a bucket of warm spit. Indeed, the fact that BLAG sees fit to say that the law doesn’t specifically single out anyone shows how insignificant, unimportant, even nonexistent gay relationships are to these people. While they single us out for um, well, not praise.
However, they helpfully provide us with the very reason that certain relationships were “not [ ] singling out any category of relationships…”:
By 1996, however, a Hawaii Supreme Court decision had called that uniform approach into question. See Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (indicating that same-sex marriage licenses may have been required by Hawaii’s constitution). The Baehr decision raised the novel question of whether one state’s redefinition of marriage should automatically extend to other states via full faith and credit principles or to the federal government when it came to federal programs linked to marriage.
(Congress, in enacting the District of Columbia’s 1901 marriage statute, intended “that‘marriage’ is limited to opposite-sex couples”).
Using a statue from 1901 to be relevant to gay folks is rather amazing. I suppose for why we can’t have children they’ll bring up a science paper on inverts from 1901 too.
Yes, while the law doesn’t “specifically” do anything, it was specifically written up so fast and rushed through with such due deliberation, and ample support in both houses as BLAG attests to “specifically” um, “not single” out gay couples by making sure they were specifically excluded from anything ever by not mentioning that we were specifically excluded. That is, they mentioned us by stating they’re not mentioning us. That you have to say “this law doesn’t apply to you, no …” means very well it does. Supposedly the law “Defends” marriage – by a mere definition of a word – and by so defining it, it clearly specifically singles out those not covered by the definition which was needed immediately to be written after 200 years of tradition of not having such a law. Sweet, eh?
Section 3 of DOMA “merely restates the current understanding of what those terms mean for purposes of federal law.”
DOMA “merely” specifically singles out gay folks to be told we can’t even use a word, and that if we do, it won’t be recognized as valid by the government. So, gay folks are paying $100 billion a year to be told we’re a bucket of warm spit. Nice, yes?
Congress thus reaffirmed the federal government’s ability to make its own decision regarding whether to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, without having its hand forced by a minority of the states or forcing any state to follow the federal definition for purposes of its own state law.
So, while nothing in the law specifically singles out gay folks, Congress did want to make sure that the federal government could make its own decision to specifically single out gay folks. Now, this is just brazen, right? I mean – you state in a legal brief you are not singling out gay folks on one page, and the very next page you boldly proclaim you are specifically singling out gay folks. And then you quote the purpose of the law was to specifically exclude even the potential for recognizing gay couples before such couples ever could have existed in law. But, you’re not singling gay folks out specifically. Got it.
[DOMA] also makes clear that no Federal law should be read to treat a same-sex union as a ‘marriage.’”);
Again, DOMA doesn’t specifically single out gay folks, they say, and makes clear that it specifically singles out gay folks. It’s mind numbing how a $3 million dollar legal effort could come up with this drivel.
Congress believed that DOMA would “preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose.” Id. As Senator Gramm observed, without DOMA, state recognition of same-sex marriage will create
[this is a stand alone quote in the brief:]
a whole group of new beneficiaries—no one knows what the number would be—tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, potentially more—who will be beneficiaries of newly created survivor benefits under Social Security, Federal retirement plans, and military retirement plans.… [I]t will impose … a whole new set of benefits and expenses which have not been planned or budgeted for under current law.
OK, then, the unwed mother and abandoning father issue is a drain on public resources. But the logic induced here, if all these unwed mothers and abandoning fathers of a sudden got married, the public purse will be negatively impacted – because, we’re budgeting (well, to the degree we have a budget,) for the unwed and abandoning, just as we’re budgeting for all those single men who are not recognized to be in couples – so, all their marriages might screw things up, eh?
Because Congress must be budgeting for us gay guys, but not as gay guys, but just pieces of protoplasm running around. After all, I would suppose they are well aware that there is a significant number of single men who are or not living together. They must know this if they are diligent keepers of the public purse to know that “an unknown number” might impact it. But, since they know all the married folks, let’s deduct them from the total, and that’s the gay number, roughly. OK, 100 male adults. 95% married once, twice or thrice, or more, – so, 5% of the men are single – Congress must know this, the Social Security Admin knows this, yes? And so, they could at least make a stabbing guess at what would happen if 5% of the people get married.
Since upwards of 50% of heteros are not married, well, then, Lord knows what would happen if DOMA pushed, as intended by Congress, for heterosexual marriage to be defended to the point of them actually doing it, and what impact that might have on the budget. Why, there could be thousands, 100,000s of thousands of heterosexuals now shacking up, or living apart, or moms not even talking to the baby daddy who might of a sudden up and get married – especially because DOMA’s intent is to push them to do so by specifically not singling out anyone except gay folks who are not part of this long sung tradition of marriage or babies out of wedlock, whichever heterosexuals prefer. We are special, I guess, on our supposed economic impact upon the budget.
They say “no one knows what the number would be …” without a shred of shame that they themselves banned the counting! The Congress told the Census: don’t count the gay folks! Egad, you don’t count us on purpose then throw your hands up in surprise you don’t know the number? You jest, yes?
And now, this is astounding in that there seems to be no recognition, zero, zilch, nada, that gay folks are paying all the taxes which they decry being potentially spent on us. It’s weird, in many ways. Gay folks pay, like I guess, $100 billion in taxes – and now, to preserve the public wealth, gay folks can’t use a few laws, that would, if the mush is right, essentially return the money to them. That is, Social Security survivor benefits, both gay guys paid in, and now, because of the reality, one is a survivor, and now, because of the law, he’s not eligible to be recognized as such – and so – where’s the money? Where did the money they paid in go? It seems as if gays aren’t taxpayers by this statement.
Sen. Byrd noted, “it is [not] inconceivable that the costs associated with such a change could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions … of Federal taxpayer dollars.”
Oh, so helpful, Sen Byrd, (long since deceased, and then he died later in office,) of the KKK who was for 200 years of traditional lynching and beatings, but hey, that’s OK, he’s a Democrat – states it clearly: Gay folks aren’t part of this “ hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions … of federal tax dollars.” Well, if the Congress let the Census count us, you might find if we own or rent, or have a job or are an unwed gay man-mother or something, and figure out our zip codes, you know, get some data on the most pressing issue the nation faces what with billions of dollars at stake. I say, fear not! We pay $100 billion and we don’t cost nearly as much as the same number of unwed mothers and abandoning fathers and the divorce and woman’s protection safe housing centers from crazed idiots. Still, if we pay this money – we get the law, yes? Or, are we still 3/5s of a person (well, maybe less.)
(“Given the budget difficulties we are currently facing, it would be an understatement to say that this [federal recognition of same-sex marriages] could have an enormous financial impact on our country.”).
I got to laugh – they decry the budget – are supported by people who claim we make up 1% of the population, no one has a clue to how many of us there are, we don’t know how much taxes we contribute, and, because gay couples use commercial and contract law in many ways we already get the benefits. In fact, the BLAG admits that even for some purposes the federal law treats gay couples as married (admits too, then, that they don’t have a problem with half the recognition, just the whole shebang, maybe we’re having the .7 children rather than the whole kids.) And so, now our tax money is ignored, and we’re to be sacrificed on the fiscal altar by these guys who have been spending like drunken sailors. That’s just rich. I guess we have to draw the line somewhere.
But, again, they’re not singling out anyone in particular, just anyone who might be two guys having an enormous financial impact on our country by filing a joint tax return – see, they see us as a revenue source – a cash cow of pure profit now that the bar raids don’t have to be paid for anymore.
In retaining the traditional definition for federal-law purposes, Congress also emphasized “‘[t]he enormous importance of [traditional] marriage for civilized society.’” House Rep. 13 (quoting Council on Families in America,
Um, so, gay men, gay couples, are not part of civilized society. Got it. We want the friggin’ tax money back already, OK?, if that’s the attitude you’re going to use.
House Rep. 12, 13. Congress recognized the basic biological fact that only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring. Congress sought to encourage the raising of such children by both their biological parents in a stable family structure. See 142 Cong. Rec. 22446 (Sen. Byrd); id. at 22262 (Sen. Lieberman) (DOMA “affirms another basic American mainstream value, … marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, the best institution to raise children in our society.”).
Congress funds the “War on Poverty” and WIC and SNAP and child-rearing welfare mother centers and programs and anger crisis intervention centers for marauding heterosexual men who left behind a trail of abandoned babies and beaten women – and does so with an open ended system of entitlement – I would day say Congress doesn’t recognize that few if any of the pre-marital sex that pops babies intot his world results in children in stable family structures. Or there would be no social service hoobah. I won’t even get into how crassly nasty the “biological parents” comment is to all the step-moms, step-dads and adopted parents there might be.
This logic also leads to banning elder couples, second marriages, infertile couples, couples who choose not to have children and well – they are not precluded from marriage – children seem to have little to do with marriage. There are marriages with no children, and marriages with no chance of children, and there are simply scads of kids without benefit of marriage whatsoever. DOMA hasn’t done a damn thing that it is supposedly intended to do. They are claiming that DOMA supports heterosexual marriages for the sake of children by not specifically singling out gay folks by not extending the laws to us, or including us in the laws as written, and it’s a dismal failure. Not a marriage has been saved or encouraged because of DOMA. It’s farcical to even think so.
And you know, I had to stop here. Oh, I really they think they’ve well explained it. I’m sure a few of the Justices will buy this. But it just doesn’t bear scrutiny by any logical process. It’s filled with just tautologies, absurd conclusions, logical fallacies, and a general disregard for American Taxpayers because Congress doesn’t like them – that they have the audacity to say DOMA doesn’t specifically single out gay couples and then use their every next paragraph to show why gay couples should be specifically singled out is perhaps the most galling bit of mush I’ve ever paid for.
Yes, what a waste of Gay American Citizen Taxpayer funds, we want a refund. When Boehner said gay guys were paying for briefs, we had something else in mind.
- Posted in: Uncategorized