If you've been hearing air raid sirens ever since July 8, they're likely coming from the National Organization for Marriage HQ where everybody is freaking out about the Defense of Marriage Act being ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.
"As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution," declared U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro.
Obviously, Tauro hates marriage and wants to ruin it for everybody, but the bigger issue for anti-gay marriage foes is the fact that the case was lost in the first place. After all, the case in favor of DOMA was argued by the Department of Justice. Yes, Obama's DOJ, which, not incidentally, includes Solicitor General Elena Kagan. You know, the Supreme Court nominee? Hoo boy, if you thought anti-gay conservatives opposed her before this ruling, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
This all means, of course, that the Obama administration intentionally lost the case in order to make everyone in the country get gay-married. Besides, everyone knows that Obama is only in office to serve the radical "homosexual agenda."
At least that's how the folks at the National Organization for Marriage see things.
"Under the guidance of Elena Kagan's brief that she filed when she was solicitor general, Obama's justice department deliberately sabotaged this case," shrieked NOM President Brian Brown.
That's right: sabotage. Why, Kagan might as well be a Russian spy. And how did she sabotage it? By including in the DOJ briefs that "this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory and supports its repeal." Oh, snap!
The way NOM sees it, poor little DOMA was all alone with nobody to protect it.
"Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case," said NOM's Maggie Gallagher.
"With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996," Brown lamented. "A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States."
Last time I checked, law wasn't based on Brown's definition of morality, but hey, I'm not a legal scholar. Also, quit acting like Bill Clinton is your BFF.
And need I mention that 1996 was 14 years ago? That's ages in the fight for lesbian and gay rights. We've come a long way, baby. Fewer and fewer people hate gays because they recognize that gay folks are human beings. Which means it's harder for groups like NOM to make convincing arguments that homos are coming after marriage on a search-and-destroy mission.
In fact, it appears to be the other way around. "Does this federal judge want to start another culture war?" threatened Gallagher. "Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade?"
She's right, of course. The whole "gay marriage" thing hasn't ever been a controversial issue until this ruling. Besides, as Gallagher helpfully points out, judges should make rulings solely to pacify right-wingers who want the right to dictate the personal lives of others in the name of Jesus.
Gallagher vowed that NOM will prevail in higher courts. We'll see. One thing is for certain: this fight isn't even close to over.
