The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion late yesterday to dismiss a federal court case which calls for states to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). From SFGate.com:

The motion, filed late Thursday, argued the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage.

“Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no,” the motion states.

The case was originally filed last year in California State Court before heading to federal court. It claims violation of a number of federal rights including the right to privacy, the right to travel and the right of free expression under the First Amendment.

The government’s filing said the suit would fail under each of those grounds. While it addressed each argument, it claimed the suit should be dismissed for lack of standing by the plaintiffs to bring the claim in federal court.

What’s more startling, as discovered by John Avarosis at AMERICAblog, the DOJ motion cites cases involving incest and underage marriage to defend DOMA. Relevant cases underlined in passage below:

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State’s public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress’s exercise of its authority in DOMA.

It’s deeply upsetting that the DOJ is defending DOMA at all, much less citing cases involving incest and underage marriage in the process. I suspect that many who have been vocal supporters of the President, who have been asking for patience on LGBT issues, are now feeling betrayed… myself included.

We can be loyal only for so long, before we become apologists.

UPDATE: Today happens to be the anniversary of  Loving v. Virginia, which overturned the ban on interracial marriage. Oh the irony. (again from Americablog).

Rockstar, Inc., the company that makes Rockstar Energy Drinks, has threatened to sue the LGBT blog The Bilerco Project for alleged inaccuracies in a post which called for a boycott of the popular product. The CEO of Rockstar, Inc. is Russell Weiner, son of the notoriously anti-gay radio personality Michael “Savage” Weiner. The claimed inaccuracies were that Rockstar Energy Drink was co-founded by Michael Savage and that he continues to reap profits from the company. From Bilerco.com:

Rockstar’s lawyer complained to me that [guest blogger] Michael’s article contained two inaccurate sentences and that the gist of the article was “Michael Savage is a filthy creep and he has deep connections with Rockstar energy drink.” While the attorney made it perfectly clear he agreed Savage was a disgusting pig, it was unfair to the company to link Rockstar with Savage just because Michael Savage’s son, Russell Weiner, is the current CEO of RockStar.

According to Rockstar’s attorney, Savage only advised his son on the drink and not the company. They dispute that Savage directly profits from sales of the energy drink as well.

However an archived version of the Rockstar website seems to suggest otherwise (archive has been blocked and is no longer available):

“I was very fortunate to have been raised by two of the leading herbalists in the world, Dr. and Mrs. MICHAEL WEINER, Ph.D. … From my earliest walking days, I remember exploring the jungles of the South Pacific on expeditions WITH MY PARENTS. … MY FAMILY HAS taken that spirit and experience – their lifetime journey – and DEVELOPED the most complete, most unique, most powerful, and most honest energy beverage ever created: ROCKSTAR.” – CEO RUSSELL GOLDENCLOUD WEINER

Russell Weiner’s mother, Janet Weiner, wife of Michael Savage, happens to be CFO of Rockstar, Inc. And while Michael Savage may not be “directly” reap profits from the company, the household likely does.

The Bilerco Project is not alone in being targeted by Rockstar’s legal team. They have also contacted a number of other websites about the disputed claims and were successful in shutting down a Facebook group with over 12,000 members that had also called for a boycott of the drink.

Since when is it illegal to call for a boycott? Christian anti-gay groups do it all the time.

At a State Department briefing yesterday Department Spokesman Ian Kelley condemned acts of violence against gays and lesbians in Iraq.

Well, let me say that, in general, we absolutely condemn acts of violence and human rights violations committed against individuals in Iraq because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is an issue that we’ve been following very closely since we have been made aware of these allegations, and we are aware of the allegations.

Our training for Iraqi security forces includes instruction on the proper observance of human rights. Human rights training is also a very important part of our and other international donors’ civilian capacity-building efforts in Iraq. And the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has raised and will continue to raise the issue with senior officials from the Government of Iraq, and has urged them to respond appropriately to all credible reports of violence against gay and lesbian Iraqis.

Video of the question and answer begins at the 20:50 mark.

Violence toward gays and lesbians in Iraq has been on the increase in recent months, many tortured or murdered by local militias or by their own relatives for shaming their families. Prominent religious leaders like radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr continue to condemned homosexuality in the harshest terms, inciting the violence.

The growing violence seems at odds with a statement made last April by John Fleming of the State Department: “In fact, it’s [homosexuality] immaterial to Iraqis … Frankly, there are other issues they’re concerned about like basic survival, getting food and water. It’s a luxury for the average Iraqi to worry about homosexuality.”

While homosexuality is not against the law in Iraq, it is forbidden by Islam.

After losing a lawsuit accusing the city of San Francisco of hostility toward the Catholic Church, Richard Thompson of the Thomas Moore Law Center had some harsh words for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, drawing on the holocaust for inspiration:

“It is not a stretch to compare the San Francisco board’s actions to that of the Nazi Germany policy of Gleichschaltung, vilifying Jews as an auxiliary to and laying the groundwork for more repressive policies, including the final solution of extermination.”

Filed on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (CLRCR), the lawsuit accused a board of supervisors resolution of violating the constitutional requirement of government neutrality toward religion. The resolution which originally passed in 2006, denounced an order from the Vatican to Catholic Charities decreeing that adoptive children could not be placed with same-sex couples because it “would actually mean doing violence to these children.” The resolution called the Vatican order “hateful and discriminatory rhetoric” and asked that local Catholic officials ignore it. They did not, and actually stopped placing adoptive children entirely.

CLRCR is headed by Bill Donohue, a rabidly anti-gay, anti-progressive Catholic apologist who regularly appears on cable news networks promulgating his views. Recently Donohue characterized an Irish report detailing abuse of children by Catholic priests and nuns as “hysterical,” even to one of its victims.

Sometimes hypocrisy is subtle, and sometimes it screams from the rooftops. Mr. Thompson, I’d suggest you and the Thomas Moore Law Center refrain from referencing Nazis and the final solution when defending the Catholic faith, particularly when considering the role the Catholic Church played in Nazi abuses during World War II. And Mr. Donohue, don’t you see the irony in defending your church against multiple cases of child abuse, while at the same time participating in a lawsuit which defends your church’s right to accuse same-sex parents of essentially the same thing? Astonishing.

This case unfortunately is far from over. The Thomas More Law Center has asked for a rehearing and will take their case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.