DOMA R.I.P.

Amidst all the blubbering and gnashing of teeth over the Supreme Court's ruling the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), it would do to step back and remember a little history from the 1990's when Congress and President Clinton put the DOMA legislation into lawbooks. 

Conservatives were not happy with DOMA when it first was proposed to begin with.  Predictions from Conservative legal scholars at the time said that eventually it would not withstand a Constitutional challenge before the court.  Indeed, that is precisely what happened. 

DOMA was a measure introduced by liberals ostensively so that the Constitution would not be “cluttered” with another amendment.  Conservatives wanted an amendment that clearly stated marriage was reserved for a man and a women; But DOMA was advertized as a compromise all sides could live with.

Once DOMA was made law, stealth or otherwise proponents of the gay rights agenda said that there was no need for an amendment since there was already a statute on the books--no need to burden our sacred Constitution.  True to its purpose, all the wind went out of sails for Congress to set forth an amendment for the states to put forth to their legislatures.  Despite assurances to the contrary, briefs set before the various state and federal courts succeeded in constitutionalizing the question anyway.

Thoughtful Conservatives knew what was up then.  We knew this day would eventually come.  Maybe not presently…maybe not in our lifetimes…but someday.

Face it.  Proponents for traditional marriage were snookered.  Out maneuvered from the very beginning with DOMA.

Gay rights has always been an enthusiasm of the Left from the start.  Once the Left took up the cause, its legions and fellow travelers (including those Christians who like to think of themselves as enlightened) took their cue and in time fell in line.)

It was a classic strategic practice of the “The Three D.s”.

DENY true aims and goals.

DELAY any definitive resolution of the issue until a "win" can be established.  (A series of defeats count for nothing but one win once settles the matter once and for all.)

DEFLECT attention away from the issue by saying that it is all over and that there are far more important matters that need to be addressed rather than this little old thing.

Those familiar with the history of the ELCA can recognize elements of the "Three D.s" leading up to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly.  From the first calls of "can we talk?", denials that all this talk was actually intended to go somewhere,  appeals for "further prayer and dialogue" following each defeat, and cessation of all that "prayer and dialogue" upon achieving one majority once.  "Hey, you don't have to agree in order to belong!"  Those knowledgeable of those events can put more flesh on that brief sketch. 

Be all this as it may, none of this is really about civil rights or "welcoming" homosexuals into the fold of the Church.  It is about removing any public suggestion that there is something morally suspect with homosexual behavior.  For many, there is nothing wrong with that; thus this is an occasion for jubilation for a hard fought victory.  They achieved their goal and will press on for more.

Just don't take it all at face value.  The issue often times isn't the issue.