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 a statement yesterday the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) revealed that U.S. Senate leadership will attempt to pass hate crimes legislation—which would add sexual orientation, gender identity and disability protections to federal law—as an amendment and not as stand-alone legislation. HRC spokesperson Trevor Thomas speaking to the Washington Blade:

“We understand that Senate leadership does not believe a hearing or mark up on the bill is necessary and plans to bring it directly to the floor as an amendment to another moving vehicle,” he said.

Thomas said the Senate determined it would pass the legislation as an amendment because the chamber’s leaders believes that’s “the most efficient way” to send the measure to the president’s desk.

Another reason may be that the Senate doesn’t have enough votes to get the measure passed as a stand-alone bill, as reported in an update on Pam’s House Blend late yesterday.

HRC is urging Congress to get hate crimes legislation to President Obama’s desk before the end of the summer.

Update: GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSilva wants to join hate crimes legislation with a provision allowing gun owners to carry their concealed weapons across state lines. Ouch!

A Fresno hospital denied Teresa Rowe access to her partner Kristin Orbin who suffered a seizure and collapsed after Meet in the Middle 4 Equality march on May 30th.

The discrimination began shortly after the paramedics arrived. Orbin described her ordeal on Examiner.com.

“By that time, I was going in and out of consciousness.  The paramedics wanted nothing to do with Teresa and she had to practically fight them to be allowed to ride in the ambulance.  I remember one of them was very nice and agreed to let her ride with me in the back.  Once we got to the hospital, they wheeled me into a hallway and left me, refusing to allow Teresa to be with me.”

Orbin said the paramedic told the nurse on duty that she had collapsed after marching 14 miles for civil rights, and the nurse gave her a dirty look and said “ooooh.”  She continued, “I asked if Teresa could come back with me, but the nurse told me I was in a no visitor zone. When I asked her why everyone else had visitors, she said ‘those people are different’.”

They refused to take my medical cards from her.  They refused Teresa’s offer to have my advance directive and power of attorney faxed over from UCSF.”

Orbin said she asked the nurses several times if Rowe could join her, but each time they refused.

“They just kept looking at my Marriage Equality shirt and giving me dirty looks,” she said.

Orbin and Rowe were not reunited until a doctor intervened a few hours later.

As a result of the incident the couple is considering legal action and has contacted the ACLU for advice.

There are laws on books here in California that protect not just gays and lesbians from this kind of discrimination, but everyone. Except apparently, in Fresno.

As promised, Governor John Lynch has just signed a marriage equality bill into law, making New Hampshire the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. Earlier today, the bill passed the both the state Senate (14-10) and the House of Representatives (198-176) before going to the Governor’s desk. Read Governor Lynch’s full statement below:

New Hampshire’s great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections.

That tradition continues today.

Two years ago in this room, I signed civil unions into law. That law gave same-sex couples in New Hampshire the rights and protections of marriage. And while civil unions was recognized as a step forward, many same-sex couples made compelling arguments that a separate system is not an equal system.

They argued that what might appear to be a minor difference in wording to some, lessened the dignity and legitimacy of their families.

At the same time, the word “marriage” has significant and religious connotations to many of our citizens.

They had concerns that this legislation would interfere with the ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.

Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities – and respect – under New Hampshire law.

Today, we are also standing up for religious liberties. This legislation makes clear that we understand that certain faiths do not recognize same-sex marriage, and it protects them from having to participate in marriage-related activities that violate their fundamental religious principles.

With the signing of this legislation today, New Hampshire will have taken every action possible to ensure that all families have equal rights to the extent that is possible under state law.

Unfortunately, the federal government does not extend the same rights and protections that New Hampshire provides same-sex families, and that should change.

Here in New Hampshire, this debate has been filled with passion and emotion on both sides.

Two years ago, after an equally passionate debate, the people of New Hampshire embraced civil unions as a natural part of New Hampshire’s long tradition of opposing discrimination.

It is my hope, and my belief, that New Hampshire will again come together to embrace tolerance and respect, and to stand against discrimination.

That has how we in New Hampshire have always lived our lives and that is how we will continue as we move forward.

Most families in New Hampshire will awaken tomorrow, go to work and to school, and feel no impact from what we have accomplished today.

But for some, they will awaken tomorrow knowing we have said to them that they are equal, that they have the same rights to live and to love as everyone else.

Today is a day to celebrate in New Hampshire. Today should not be considered a victory for some and a loss for others.

Today is a victory for all the people of New Hampshire, who I believe, in our own independent way, want tolerance for all.

That is truly the New Hampshire way.

As requested, the new law contains additional language to protect religious organizations and institutions. Though many are still not satisfied.

The law goes into effect Jan 1, 2010.