Elena Kagan proves that DOMA's original intent was bigotry, not tradition

[ProSense]

Elena Kagan proves that DOMA's original intent was bigotry, not tradition

by Laura Clawson

The Defense of Marriage Act's defenders have been trying to claim that the law isn't about bigotry and denying people the right to equality. No, no, see, it's about supporting traditional marriage, and doesn't that just sound a lot nicer? But when Paul Clement, the pro-DOMA lawyer hired by House Republicans, tried to soft-pedal thusly, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wasn't letting it go by unchallenged.

“All these federal statutes were passed with the traditional definition of marriage in mind,” Clement said. “What Congress says is, ‘Let’s take a time out. This is a redefinition of an age-old tradition.’”

Kagan responded that, first of all, DOMA violated another tradition, saying, “The only uniformity that the federal government has pursued is that it’s uniformly recognized the marriages that are recognized by the state.” And, uh, also this:

A short time later, Kagan read aloud from the House Judiciary Committee report on DOMA. “Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality,” she said, quoting the report.

That wasn't all members of Congress had to say along those lines, either. Rep. Steve Largent (R-OK) wanted Congress to "Look at history. No culture that has ever embraced homosexuality has ever survived." While Rep. Roscoe Bartlett did invoke "traditional marriage," he said that in the context of spouting off about "the decline of moral standards and values."

So, yeah, while Paul Clement claims that that's not the spirit in which he and today's House Republicans are defending the law, it's kinda hard to deny that the intent of passing DOMA was less about a misty appeal to tradition and more about bigotry. Just as Kagan said.

Now if only the Supreme Court would allow video of hearings so we could see these moments in action.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/27/1197402/-Elena-Kagan-proves-that-DOMA-s-original-intent-was-bigotry-not-tradition

[1-Old-Man]

1. It is not the job of any Justice to "prove" anything

You speak as if the Justice had decided the question beforehand and was acting as an advocate for one side or the other. If that is the case then she has no business on the Court. But in this case she's safe because that is certainly not what she did, she is a fair and impartial Judge as far as I can see and it is you who may have inadvertently mischaracterized her question.

[ProSense]

2. What?

"It is not the job of any Justice to "prove" anything...You speak as if the Justice had decided the question beforehand and was acting as an advocate for one side or the other. If that is the case then she has no business on the Court."

People can form opinions based on the arguments that Justices make. "You speak as if..." Yeah, free speech allows that, just as it allows your interpretation of the OP.

[Cha]

3. Thank you Justice Kagan..

A short time later, Kagan read aloud from the House Judiciary Committee report on DOMA. “Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality,” she said, quoting the report.

thanks for the article from Laura Clawson, ProSense

[ProSense]

4. Did you know

that Kagan is a "Monsanto shill": http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2593065

[Cha]

5. No, but I do know that

there are a lot of "shills" for Ignorance permeating the boards.

Thanks for trying to combat that.