For John, BLUF: Does Progressive mean we act in a small way now, hiding our actions for the future? Nothing to see here; just move along.
From BuzzFeed we have this headline:
Obama Administration Urges Nationwide End To Same-Sex Marriage BansNot to be outdone, on the Republican side we have this (Time Magazine):
“There is no adequate justification for such a discriminatory and injurious exercise of state power,” the Obama administration urges the Supreme Court. More than 200 congressional Democrats also weigh in to support marriage equality.
More Than 300 Republicans Call on Supreme Court to Recognize Gay Marriage NationallyWhy this flurry of activity. It must be time to file amicus curiae briefs, since, per The Christian Science Monitor, back in January, "Supreme Court agrees to rule on whether same-sex couples nationwide can marry". Some 379 companies filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of gay marriage. Amongst the companies were Coca-Cola, Bank of America, and the New England Patriots.
The item from BuzzFeed mentions that the Administration is no longer defending DOMA, which one would think would fall under the Take Care Clause. If the law is bad, ask Congress to change it. Go out on a Whistle Stop campaign to build public support. Otherwise one begins to wonder what other laws are not being "Faithfully Executed", as it says in the US Constitution.
Besides, and this is where the SJC's Goodridge v Department of Public Health Ruling fell flat, the issue is not just same sex marriage. There are other configurations to be considered. Why are we imposing our "evolved" Western Views on this issue. Why are we not able to let other views on what constitutes marriage live in the open?
From the Daily Mail we have this item:
They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex marriage: Gay Thai men tie the knot in 'fairytale ceremony'Not my taste, but why should my taste determine your taste, except to the extent that you ask me what I think. If you do, I will tell you.
And, if NPR is to be believed we have 50,000 to 100,000 Muslims in the United States are "Quietly Engage in Polygamy". Are we being fair to them?
Then there is the United Nations. Wikipedia has this:
In 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Committee considered polygamy (probably limited to polygyny) a violation of the internationally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the grounds that it violates the dignity of women, and recommended it be made illegal in all states.I wonder how the various Muslim dominant nations, and other nations that allow polygamy, feel about that?
But, back to our problem, we are not really basing our actions on the idea that our Constitution calls for freedom, but rather, as with Goodridge, on helping a particular group that is in favor, versus other, smaller groups, which are not in favor. Not that the outcome is bad, but that the outcome is narrow and not what is being claimed on its behalf.
Hat tip to Memeorandum.
Regards — Cliff