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).

So said Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) according to a staffer when one of Shirley Tan’s sons broke into tears as his mother testified at the UAFA hearings in Washington yesterday.

In the clip below, Senator Patrick Leahy stops the hearing briefly near the 5 minute mark as Tan’s son weeps.

When it was his turn to speak, Sessions cited the usual arguments and suspects in his remarks, his opposition to same-sex marriage in full view of the hearing. His remarks can be viewed here.

Just to get a sense of who we are dealing with, watch the clip from Rachel Maddow Show below which digs into Sessions’ “colored” past…

The Senator’s press secretary did not return a call seeking comment. And as for histrionics… I think this is a much better example.

As reported in the New Republic.

Now for some much needed levity. Meet Betty Bowers, America’s—and perhaps the world’s—greatest Christian as she explains what traditional marriage is all about… And it’s not what you think… Enjoy.

Over the weekend the Nevada legislature by margins of 14-7 in the Senate and 28-14 in the Assembly voted to override a veto on a domestic partnership bill that granted both straight and same-sex couples many of the same rights and responsibilities available to married couples. Governor Jim Gibbons vetoed the bill believing “government has no business in your medicine chest or bedroom,” and because it went against the spirit of Nevada’s 2002 amendment declaring that marriage was only between a man and a woman.

In addition to protecting couples against discrimination, the new measure will bring parity with marriage on issues such as debt and property. The bill however does not force employers to offer health care and other benefits to domestic partners as is the case in California.

The new law goes into effect October 1.