Tuesday’s Reflector provided an interesting study in contradictions. While one editorial called for changes in society to end discrimination, another editorial defended discrimination. This editorial, Tracey Apperson’s “Marriage group is wrong,” ridiculed the efforts of a group fighting to end discrimination – discrimination backed by the force of an unjust and unconstitutional law.
Apperson ridicules the efforts of the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance to make the opinion of the court in Andersen v. King County the law and define marriage as only for procreation. Once in place, the law would be struck down, weakening the “legitimate state interest” claim cited in Andersen and allowing same-sex couples to challenge the earlier ruling in order to receive recognition. By calling this method “ridiculous,” Apperson is calling into question a method of ending discrimination.
Apperson continues to write that even if Andersen is overturned an obstacle remains, the unjust and unconstitutional law I mentioned earlier, the Defense of Marriage Act (DMA). Apperson is wrong here, too. DMA does two things: allows states to violate the Constitution (Art. 4, Sec. 1 Full Faith and Credit) and not be required to recognize public acts (i.e. marriage licenses) of other states while also allowing the federal government to create citizens who are not entitled to equal treatment before the law (contradicting not only the 14th Amendment’s call for equality before the law, but every definition of democracy I have ever seen by denying equality before the law to a minority). Furthermore, nowhere does DMA deny states the authority to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples (doing such would violate states’ rights), which Massachusetts, Vermont and (most recently) New Jersey have to grant marriage or separate but equal institutions.
“Marriage group is wrong” is a stab at those fighting for equality against an unjust and unfair law and democracy.