Lower Court Picks Up Supremes’ Themes on Homosexual Marriage

It’s only been a couple of days, but the Supreme Court’s decision to clear the way for homosexual marriage has already filtered down to lower courts.

When the Supreme Court issued its decision gutting the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, the majority based its ruling on their opinion that any law disallowing homosexual marriage was rooted in bigotry and a desire to punish homosexuals.

Their arguments also included the implicit assumption that homosexual marriage is valid and a benefit to society.

A federal judge in Michigan, who heard arguments a year ago, ruled Friday that Michigan’s ban on domestic partner benefits for school and other government employees was based on the desire to hurt homosexuals.

“It is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose — indeed, perhaps the sole purpose — of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. But that can never be a legitimate governmental purpose,” said U.S. District Judge David Lawson n issuing an injunction.

If the statement sounds familiar, it should. Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissenting opinion on Wednesday wrote that the majority, by effectively declaring opponents of homosexual marriage “enemies of the human race,” had armed anyone wishing to overturn traditional marriage with a ready-made, court-approved argument.

Lawson, in a 51-page statement in which he cited the DOMA ruling, followed the Supreme Court majority’s lead in ridiculing the ban on domestic partner benefits. He called arguments that the ban was in keeping with the spirit of a 2004 constitutional amendment passed by voters that defined marriage as between a man and a woman “a 5-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.”

There used to be a thing called the judicial temperament, the calm, ordered thinking judges would traditionally apply to their rulings. Wednesday’s DOMA opinion by the five-justice majority has done nothing to uphold the dignity of the office, indulging as they did in the sort of bumper sticker sloganeering and stereotyping that has come to dominate the Left.

When the Michigan law was passed a few years ago, it was seen as a way to exercise fiscal responsibility and honor the wishes of the voters to hold that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

But the Left’s distortions and lies are the order of the day, thanks to the Supreme Court.

“The judge was absolutely correct in finding that the law was unconstitutional because it’s motivated by bigotry,” said ACLU legal director Michael Steinberg.

Thus, even though the DOMA ruling and the ruling on California’s Prop. 8 didn’t technically install homosexual marriage throughout the land, by recording the Left’s propaganda points as court precedent, it has given homosexuals a clear path to avoid any debate over the validity of same-sex marriage and to roll over the opposition.