I certainly don’t think libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) should be exempt from criticism, but the reporting shouldn’t be as misleading as in the Advocate story, Ron Paul Supports DOMA.
There is much confusion both by politicians and throughout the media over the fact that the Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton signed into law has two aspects: Section Two holds that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages that are authorized by other states. Section Three holds that the federal government may not recognize any state-sanctioned same-sex marriage for purposes of federal law, which includes matters such as joint income tax filing, spousal immigration, Social Security inheritance, etc.
An argument can be made that Section Two upholds federalism and, even if disagreeable, allows for a slow but steady progression of state-recognition for same-sex marriage without forcing Utah and Alabama to recognize marriages performed in Vermont and Massachusetts. That could have the positive benefit of taking some of the heat off of a push by social conservatives for a federal constitutional amendment that would bar all states from recognizing same-sex marriage.
But there is no justifiable federal argument on behalf of Section Three. It’s anti-federalist, imposing one doctrine (non-recognition) on all states. It’s also ahistorical, in that the federal government has always allowed states to define their own marriage laws and to then recognize those unions.
So what’s wrong with the Advocate piece? Here’s an excerpt:
Speaking to the group Family Leader in Pella, Paul said of DOMA, “I see that as an act that was prohibiting the move to nationalize [same-sex marriage] and force Iowa to accept the rules of Massachusetts or whatever,” The Des Moines Register reports. DOMA, which President Obama and the Justice Department said they will no longer defend in court, allows states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states, and also prevents federal recognition of such unions.
Rep. Paul states his support for Section Two of DOMA. He doesn’t mention Section Three. But the Advocate then defines DOMA via non-federal recognition.
Maybe Rep. Paul is bad on that, too. But it’s not what he is quoted as saying and doesn’t jive with his opposition to a federal anti-gay marriage amendment. The magazine says, with some justification, that Paul “seemed unclear” and showed “confusion” about DOMA, which is true to the extent he didn’t mention the anti-federalist Section Three in making his federalist argument. But the Advocate itself further muddies the water by confusing support for Section Two with Section Three; they are different, and reporting should clarify, not confuse, that point.
It’s very possible that when DOMA reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, Section Two will be upheld but Section Three ruled unconstitutional. Our efforts should be concentrated on getting rid of Section Three, even if it means living with (or even embracing) Section Two. That will require a bit more sophistication than the Advocate and other media seem willing to muster.
11 Comments for “Is Confusion over DOMA Deliberate?”
posted by esurience on
He said “I see that as an act…” — referring to DOMA, and he gave his support for the act — which is DOMA.
So, Ron Paul unequivocally supported the legislation known as DOMA.
Perhaps he is confused about what DOMA actually does, and isn’t aware of section 3. But that’s the only escape clause he has with that quote.
He did, unequivocally, give his support for DOMA. Whether he misunderstands DOMA or not is a question, but he did give a statement of support for it.
Stop trying to mislead people, Stephen H. Miller.
Politicians often announce support or opposition of a bill/law that they clearly do not completely understand. But we still put the checkmark in the proper column for whether they support or are opposed to something.
Does that make sense, Stephen H. Miller?
posted by another steve on
He said “I see that as an act…” — referring to DOMA, and he gave his support for the act — which is DOMA.
So, Ron Paul unequivocally supported the legislation known as DOMA.
If so much of the above wasn’t a bit of a Ron Paul quote surrounded by a lot of Advocate and “esurience” paraphrasing, I’d be much more confident in what Paul might have been trying to say.
What is “clear” is that Paul supports Section Two of the act and did not address Section Three (if he had, the Advocate would certainly have pointed that out). From his other statements, it’s likely that Paul is uncomfortable with the anti-federalist nature of Section Three and so avoids mentioning it when wooing social conservatives in Iowa.
That may not demonstrate courage but it does point to an opening in lobbying for the support of liberterian-leaning conservatives such as Paul in the fight to get rid of Section Three (even if, as SHM notes, we’ll have to live with Section Two).
posted by esurience on
Wow, it’s like you read nothing that I said.
What Paul announced his support for was DOMA.
That is a true statement.
Let it sink in.
posted by another steve1 on
No, I disagreed with you about what Paul was saying. Your assertion is not an argument — and neither is your being snide.
posted by esurience on
I don’t need an argument.
Paul gave a statement of support for DOMA… it’s right there in the quote. When someone gives a statement of support for something, we say that they support that something.
You are illiterate.
posted by Tom on
It’s very possible that when DOMA reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, Section Two will be upheld but Section Three ruled unconstitutional. Our efforts should be concentrated on getting rid of Section Three, even if it means living with (or even embracing) Section Two.
My view is that Section 2 is nothing more than feel-good bling enacted for the sole purpose of political pandering and animus, in light of the public policy exception to Full Faith and Credit, which dates back to the Story court. In my view, Section 2 adds nothing to existing law, and for that reason has little or no purpose.
I don’t know how SCOTUS will deal with a statute that attempts to “define” Full Faith and Credit in this respect, but you can bet that if the Court decides that Section 2 limits the operation of Full Faith and Credit in any material way beyond the public policy exception, it will be deemed unconstitutional.
Section 2 is a good example of a power shovel, allowing Congress to dig its own hole faster and deeper.
If Section 2 adds anything to the public policy exception (and the Court would not be amiss, it seems to me, to conclude that the legislature must have had a purpose in enacting the legislation), it is unlikely to pass muster.
While I agree that we should put our effort into repeal of Section 3, I don’t see any reason why our efforts should solely be directed toward that end. I think that’s wrongheaded.
If Section 2 is meaningless bling, as I view it, we should seek its repeal because it is then nothing more than yet another exercise in legislation by animus, and if Section 2 is not meaningless (that is, if it limits Full Faith and Credit beyond the public policy exception) then we should seek its repeal because Congress overstepped its constitutional authority.
That will require a bit more sophistication than the Advocate and other media seem willing to muster.
Or commentators, for that matter …
posted by Amicus on
yes, but bling has its place, in politics and in law.
Right now, “section 3 is unconstitutional” is nice bling, just as section 2 is nice bling.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s frustrating to watch the press misreport what is happening with the DOMA case and to hear elected officials say things that are completely untrue. The Obama administration has decided not to appeal the recent decision but at the same time they ARE going to uphold the law. The second half of that is clearly not understood by most people commenting on this matter.
posted by Hunter on
Sorry, but your analysis of the Advocate quote isn’t persuasive.
Granted, the quote attributed to Paul is murky, but it quite possibly refers to Section 3 as well as Section 2: “an attempt to avoid nationalizing [same-sex marriage]” can easily be interpreted to refer to the ban on federal recognition as well as an exception to Full Faith and Credit. (Although perhaps I’m ascribing too much subtlety to Paul.) In that reading, the description (and please note, it’s not an attempt at “definition,” it’s merely a description) of DOMA by the Advocate writer makes perfect sense and is, in fact, appropriate.
If you’re going to accuse the Advocate of misleading reporting, you’re going to have to pick a better example.
posted by BobN on
I love the idea that the messenger is the one muddling the message here.
How about the speaker? Maybe HE is the one being deliberately confusing, so as not to display what a hypocrite he is.
posted by Mark F. on
How about someone asks Congressman Paul for a clarification on his view of DOMA?