-
I Try to Explain Debt on CBN News
May 23, 2012 | 13 comments
-
More on Wright
May 21, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Missing the Point on Rev. Wright
May 21, 2012 | 10 comments
-
Exorcise DeGioia and Company From Georgetown
May 19, 2012 | 23 comments
-
McMorris Rodgers Gains Attention
May 19, 2012 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Setting aside the high-school-sophomore level reasoning of Aaron Goldstein's last two paragraphs this morning on the DOMA decision ("You cannot legislate morality" is right up there in inanity with "well, he started it!!"), the problem I have with the entire column is that Goldstein clearly doesn't even understand what is at issue. I wrote him a note before posting this, explaining his factual errors, but he declined to amend a single word. So, despite what is usually my high regard for Goldstein's work, here's what I wrote him:
The Obama decision has NOTHING to do with "the government defending marriage," in the sense you describe it. At issue is Section 3 of DOMA, which for purposes of federal law says that any mention of "marriage" (or its derivative words) IN FEDERAL STATUTES is to be defined as being between a man and a woman, and that any mention of "spouse" is to be defined as pertaining to the opposite sex. ALL this means is that in the hundreds and hundreds of federal statues that mention such words, the standard, traditional definition applies. It clarifies existing congressional intent. Because so much law is written with reference to this millennia-old, basic unit of family organization, and because all sorts of complicated questions would arise if, statute by statute by statute, each law had to be re-written to specify this basic intent (or not to do so), Congress decided to clarify that all existing law should be taken at what until about four years ago was considered to be obvious face value. Obama's decision ONLY affects Section 3 of DOMA. That's it. Period. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/02/letter-from-the-attorney-general-to-congress-on-litigation-involving-the-defense-of-marriage-act.php?page=1. That has nothing to do with getting the federal government "out of the marriage business." It merely sets a definition and thus precludes lawsuits based on an alternative definition, aimed at any of the hundreds of statutes involved. (It also does NOT preclude any subsequent statute from saying something like "notwithstanding any prior statute to the contrary, for purposes of this statute a 'marriage' shall be understood in whatever way the term is defined in the state wherein the affected parties reside." ANY subsequent statute trumps a prior statute.)
Secondly, as for the rest of DOMA, which is NOT at issue in the president's decision yesterday, it absolutely does leave the definition of marriage to the state and local level for purposes of state and local law, despite your ignorant claims to the contrary. What DOMA does is say that a state that does NOT wish to recognize a homosexual marriage of ANOTHER state, for purposes of its own state laws, is free not to do so. DOMA therefore PROTECTS state and local decision-making, rather than abuses it. This isn't a matter of opinion; it's fact. That's what the law does. You have utterly mis-described it. Your argument on grounds of federalism is therefore ass-backward.
Now, if you were to argue that a state should be forced to recognize a homosexual "marriage" created in another state, I would disagree with your opinion, but I would not challenge the very basis of your argument. Again, this is not about opinion; it is about a flagrant misstatement.
The point on federalism is the most important. There is absolutely nothing in DOMA that takes away a state's opportunity to "recognize same-sex marriage." Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Rien. What it does is ENHANCE a state's ability to have its own, traditional definition of marriage be protected for all purposes of its own state law. This is not a matter of opinion. It is simple fact. Look, frankly, DOMA is not high up on my list of most pressing issues. I support it, but I'll let others argue its merits if only because I write on so many other issues. But the issues on which I write most often are legal issues, and this decision by Obama is a legal matter. Goldstein completely misrepresents the legal subject at stake. In doing so, he mistakenly puts social conservatives in the position of forfeiting the conservative belief in federalism, when in fact their position is by the very terms of DOMA the position supportive of federalism. It makes them look like hypocrites, when they are anything but.
As for Obama's decision not to defend the law, it is probably a blessing in practical terms, because his administration's prior defense of it was so half-hearted as to actually undermine it. In constitutional terms, though, the decision is lawless, because there is no way under the sun that the president can legitimately claim there is no reasonable basis to defend the law's constitutionality. Unless he can make such a claim, then he is obliged to defend it in the courts, and to do so forcefully, just as Ted Olson defended the campaign finance law for President Bush even while both disagreed with it. As the Washington Times wrote today, "Eleven circuit courts already have ruled that Mr. Obama is wrong....The unambiguous revelation this week is how radically removed Mr. Obama is from American public opinion, U.S. constitutional tradition and the mainstream of human history."
View all comments (26) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/24/goldstein-doesnt-know-what-hes
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Handicap the Handicapper
- Heaven Is Overrated
- …And a Young Child Will Lead
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Oldefarte| 2.24.11 @ 2:06PM
Once again [for the thousandth time] the NATURAL LAW is the basis for/foundation of the entirety of MAN'S LAW [ie, Thou shalt not kill=laws against murder, etc]. Natural law is explicit on marriage [Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's WIFE; Honor your MOTHER and thy FATHER]. Same sex/homosexual marriage is IMMORAL and against the NATURAL LAW, therefore it is also illegal under MAN'S LAW, Case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 4:13PM
I am no expert in Natural Law, but what you say seems correct to me. Marriage was never defined by government or the states. It was a given. To arbitrarily change the definition to fit the noise of the day seems a bit crazy. One may as just as well change the definition of red to blue.
simon templar| 2.24.11 @ 2:21PM
Thank you, Quin, for clearly explaining a very complicated issue and taking the time to confront this misunderstanding. This a self governing Republic and morality is certainly the basis of our laws. These arguments about, "we can not legislate morality," are misleading and ridiculous.
Eric Cartman| 2.24.11 @ 2:22PM
Um, I thought it was an Executive Branch job to enforce the laws of the land, regardless of they agree with the law or not. Well, I guess it's whatever Obama says it is. Can't wait till President Palin ;-)
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 2:23PM
Here we go, hillyer v. Goldstein... DING DING DING!!!
Quin| 2.24.11 @ 2:32PM
To be clear, I have no problem with Goldstein having a differing opinion. He usually expresses his opinions eloquently and thoughtfully. It's just that in this case the entire factual basis for his key paragraphs is just flat-out wrong.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 2:37PM
LOL
Sean| 2.24.11 @ 2:34PM
Goldstein only became a Republican after 9/11. Before that he was most likely a socialist.
Handy| 2.24.11 @ 2:47PM
I think Goldstein tried to go straight after 9/11, but failed.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 2.24.11 @ 2:38PM
This is why I love the American Spectator. More tongue-in-cheek humor and incivility than a man knows what to do with!!
Handy| 2.24.11 @ 2:45PM
Sheesh Quin,
Not that I disagree with you so much, but you really do go off on tangents. Goldstein is just playing with you, and you took the bait.
Stop arguing on the margins, and get down to cases. Married people have been exploiting us single people forever. Families were never healthier than in 19th Century America, before we started subsidizing them.
We should start the process of deconstructing the "Marriagetocracy" by outlawing marriage totally. Any babies would be the sole responsibilities of their Moms.
I am surprised you cannot grasp the simplicity of this solution. No more divorce courts or custody battles. If a girl wants to incubate her egg on her own, well, that's the Pro-Choice solution. Let her lay it. Let her nurture it. Men are only sperm donors anyway. Everyone wins.
Get with it, Quin.
Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 4:16PM
Those of us without children should quit subsidizing those with children also. Also we should quit favoring corporations and employer/employee relationships. Everyone is on their own.
With God all things r possible| 2.25.11 @ 9:53AM
You are not subsidizing those with children; you are merely making up for what you do not contribute in human capital to the next generation of citizens, workers and taxpayers.
JD522| 2.24.11 @ 2:48PM
"You cannot legislate morality"
Of COURSE you can legislate morality. Legislated morality is what the law IS. There are laws against murder and theft and slander because society believes these things are WRONG morally, and therefore punishes them. What Goldstein really means when he says "You can't legislate morality" is that YOU (evil conservatives) cannot legislate moral positions that HE disagrees with. Goldstein himself would probably still feel free to "legislate morality" in areas like speech codes and hate crimes laws and see absolutely no contradiction. Because, you know, those things are morally RIGHT.
Regards,
Joe
Clint| 2.24.11 @ 2:49PM
Apparently, Handy Married His Hand.
Handy| 2.24.11 @ 3:13PM
Want to lend me your hand?
Remember, you started this, you big fairy.
Clint| 2.24.11 @ 3:29PM
I'll put my size 10 combat boot up your ass, Princess.
Strudwick Wickerwire| 2.24.11 @ 3:32PM
Hey, how-bout letting the definition of "Gay" union be officially known as "We euphemistically exist in a state of matrimonial bliss." Therefore leave the word "Marriage" to be the exclusive domain of a man and a woman, likewise "Divorce" will be universally known as putting an end to this kinky mess!!!
CalMark| 2.24.11 @ 3:48PM
I used to come to AMSPEC all the time. Then Goldstein, he of the infuriating sophomoric crypto-leftism, appeared from somewhere. His lengthy, emotional rant trashing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in mid-December was the last straw. I've been back less than a dozen times since then.
Between Tabin and Goldstein, to say nothing of R. Emmett Tyrrell's occasional but resounding falls from (conservative) grace, AMSPEC is moving rapidly left.
If you guys are trying to catch up with National Review (AKA McCain Primary Election Central Headquarters), take heart: you're closing fast!
Wayne | 2.24.11 @ 4:19PM
Maybe that is why they seemed so bent on saying Obama moved to the center and praised Obama for that pep rally (I mean speech) in Tucson. You need the squishy conservatives to give Obama credibility.
With God all things r possible| 2.25.11 @ 9:56AM
Cal Mark, I feel the same way. Where did Goldstein come from? When he writes on social issues he sounds like he's reading Democratic talking points, without the reasoning that would at least make his opinion grudgingly worth reading.
Let's promote him to another site.
Oldefarte| 2.24.11 @ 4:59PM
Wow, shazam, what intelligent conversation [boot sizes, etc]!!!!!!!!!
Derek Leaberry| 2.24.11 @ 5:02PM
Mr. Goldstein is morally depraved. But most who have posted at this site for morer than a week or two know that.
Dan| 2.24.11 @ 6:26PM
Quin,
you've taken the issue up legally, and that's appropriate given the recent policy gambit regarding DOMA, but the decisive battlespace for this issue is the American culture.
Ultimately, the law will follow culture.
Without social stigma, the law will not hold the line. So long as the social stigma remained, the law was never in doubt. It's only been in the last three decades that sea change has occurred on this issue.
And it's all sloppy thinking, intellectual and moral relativism, and of course misplaced sympathy.
With God all things r possible| 2.25.11 @ 10:01AM
Quin,
I see that the American Spectator body has finally begun to reject the Goldstein organ transplant. If he credibly reasoned his way into his social policy positions as you and others do, or if he shared some convincing personal narrative that exhibits self-examination and not just an echo of self-absorbed and debased popular culture , we could put up with it. As it is, with social issues I feel like I'm arguing with an undergrad at a state university.
Isn't there any way we can transplant him to another site that would be more suitable?
chaussures converse femme| 2.28.11 @ 3:15AM
nice