It was reported earlier this week that the Obama administration's Justice Department would no longer defend a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). What are the logical implications of this?
According to Francis Beckwith (a friend and frequent commenter on this blog), if the position is taken to its jurisprudential conclusion it is not only advocates of gay "marriage" who will benefit from the reasoning employed by the Obama administration, but Mormon fundamentalists like Warren Jeffs, who believe you must have at least three wives in order to get to Heaven.
Sec. 3 of DOMA not only addresses the genders requisite for marriage but the requisite number that constitutes it:
There is a number limitation as well. So, if the entirety of sec. 3 violates the 5th amendment and thus does not withstand heightened scrutiny, it would seem to be as unconstitutional to limit marriage to two as it would be to limit it to opposite genders, since there are ”sexual minorities” who would welcome such a judicial discarding of capricious numberism. (The plight of the polyamorous bisexual comes immediately to mind). I don’t know if the Obama people thought this through, but the implication of General Holder’s claim is not only that the constitution requires genderless marriage but it requires that a limitation of marriage to two must withstand heightened scrutiny as well. This means that the 19th century federal statutes that made polygamy illegal in the territories are probably unconstitutional.So ladies, get yourselves a pastel prairie dress and do your hair up in loose braids. The Obama marriage policy has been unveiled.