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).

In an appeal for public help, Sydney police have released a disturbing x-ray image of a young man who was brutally murdered by driving 34 nails deep into his skull with a nail gun.

The image is of Chen (Anthony) Liu, a gay Chinese immigrant whose body was found decomposing in the Georges river—wrapped in plastic, wire and extension cord—in November 2008, nearly two weeks after his disappearance.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

“In 36 years, I’ve never seen a murder of this nature,” Supt Beresford told reporters in Sydney on Friday.

“It’s a particularly brutal and vicious murder and hence the reason we are seeking information from the public.”

He said 34 nails had entered “predominantly into the head area” at very close range, fired from an 85mm nail gun.

“We certainly believe the nail gun is responsible for the death, there’s no doubt about that,” he said.

And from the local television station:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfFJsmMXyxM[/youtube]

While the Sydney police are reluctant to qualify the Liu’s murder as a hate crime at this time, if it walks and talks like a hate crime… well my friends, it’s probably a hate crime. Whether it’s based on race, sexual orientation or both.

But if you ask Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who is vehemently opposed to the hate crimes legislation now coursing its way through Congress, he would likely disagree. From Perkins’ Fight Hate Crimes website:

Hate Crimes legislation is ultimately a Thought Crime law, allowing citizens to be prosecuted for their religious beliefs.

Hate Crimes legislation is a violation of our First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion.

Hate Crimes legislation creates a special class of people based on their “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”

The Constitutional rights of pastors and religious individuals to peacefully disagree on issues of sexual orientation should be protected.

Again we circle around to the whole religious persecution argument. Mr. Perkins, unless faith is proven to be a major and recurring motive in brutal slayings such as these, then you really don’t have anything to worry about. Or IS that what you’re worried about? This is a free country Mr. Perkins,  and you are entitled to your bigotry and hate, but not the violence that flows from it. And that violence should be punished in kind, not to diminish your faith, but to discourage the violence and hate that often uses religion as its source.

Hat tip to Gay News Blog.

What an unexpected but lovely surprise. The D.C.  Council unanimously voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Gay council member David A. Catania and Mayor Adrian Fenty responded to the decision in the Washington Post…

Catania: “I feel really heartened by this vote … I am obviously proud to be a part of the legislature of this city. I fully expect if we go forward, when we go forward, on marriage equality we will have a super-majority in support of it.”

Fenty: “I fully support today’s action and look forward to signing the legislation once the Council takes final action next month.”

Rea Carey, Executive Director National Gay and Lesbian Task Force also praised today’s vote…

“We commend the D.C. Council’s vote. It marks another step toward the full recognition of same-sex couples, their families and their lives. We urge the council to affirm today’s action during its final vote on the bill, and call upon Mayor Adrian Fenty to then sign this important legislation. It is our hope that Congress will ultimately respect the District of Columbia’s passage of a just measure that will provide fair recognition of our relationships.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council which is based in Washington, D.C. opposed the decision:

“Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage.”

“The vote today by the D.C. City Council was a direct affront to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The radical Left wants to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman across the country and they will not rest until they do so.

What’s is ultimately so wonderful about this decision is that it will force Congress to deal with the issue of gay marriage much earlier than expected, as the District’s laws are subject to their approval.

We’ll soon see if  marriage equality extends all the way to the Oval Office.

As reported earlier this week, Friday may be Shirley Tan’s last day in the United States, leaving behind her partner Jay Mercado and her twin sons as she is deported back to the Philippines, as current immigration law doesn’t allow binational same-sex couples to sponsor their partners.

The offices of state Senators Boxer and Feinstein have been actively working on a private bill, which if passed by Congress, would allow the couple to stay or at least delay the deportation until the family could make proper arrangements to move out of the country. But the odds of such a bill coming together and passing on such short notice is unlikely.

Jackie Speire who represents the couple’s district is also exploring options. As reported in the Bay Area Reporter…

“We’re doing everything we can. [Speier’s] instructed us to see what the remedies are,” said Mike Larsen, Speier’s communications director, who noted they found out about Tan’s case “pretty late in the process.”

“If we can introduce a private bill that will help her, then she’s instructed staff to find out what can we do in time to help her out,” said Larsen.

“Our understanding is that in the Senate when a private bill in an immigration case is introduced, the deportation is stayed immediately, until the end of that term of Congress,” added Larsen, who said in this case that would be early January 2011.

“In the House, the order to stay would not occur until after the private bill made its way through the committee process, so we are currently trying to see … if there’s a way to speed up the committee process or if there’s some other route that we are unaware of,” said Larsen.

He added that based on what they know of Tan’s case, “on the face of that … it appears she should at least get a hearing to determine the viability of her claim, because it does seem to be this previous immigration lawyer, for whatever reasons, didn’t seem to keep her client adequately informed.”

The only other possible option is for Tan’s attorney to request an emergency stay of deportation once Tan is in custody on Friday.

Are hearts go out to them, and this story is further proof that we have a long way to go to achieve equal rights. And how important it is that we get the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) passed now.

Please show your support for their family on Facebook.