This image was part of a story about how the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice was declining to defend the section of DOMA that preventing the recognition of gay 
spouses and denying those spouses benefits. A move I fully support, I think a generation from now this whole period will be looked upon with the same sort of distaste as we have for the Jim Crow era, and I will be proud of my support for equality.
What struck me interesting though was my reaction to the photograph, and instantaneous and un-contemplated reaction. No, it wasn’t that strange erotic thrill that so many men get from watching or conjuring up the thought of two women having sex. The first and foremost emotion I felt was one of sincere and profound happiness.
I have been a sailor in the United States Navy, having toured once the Western Pacific (WestPac) in a several month cruise. It is a hard and at times very lonely task. To come home to such warmth and such love is truly a blessing and it moved me to see this image, which captures the ideal so perfectly. I have no idea who the sailor is in the image, but I am terribly pleased that a person sacrificing for my safety and my rights has such love waiting here at home.
All this flashed through my mind and on a deeper than conscious level before it even registered with me that this were two women kissing. That element was trivial, not worthy of notice or consideration. What mattered here was the love.
In the end that is all that matters.
(Updated to include the link)
I think that you’ll find that there are laws officially on the books that are illegal to enforce. That Maryland law may fall under the Griswals decision that established the right to privacy.
Brad, do you realize how common selective enforcement is? Most of it is for the best. (No doubt about it – our laws need pruning. You could take a decade doing nothing but that and not prune enough.) Here are four examples:
1) Law on the books in Maryland (paraphrased) – Sexual congress is for the purpose of a married couple having children only. This means out of wedlock intercourse is illegal, as is any homosexual act AND intercourse if you are married and there is an impediment to having children, such as a hysterectomy, is illegal. Thank goodness they don’t enforce this one!!
2) Law on the books in New York City – a woman shall be considered indecently exposed if she is wearing on her body less than five yards of fabric. Obviously left over from Victorian times, most women today would be lucky to be wearing two yards of fabric. Again – I am glad they aren’t enforcing it.
3) Law on the books in Florida – it is illegal to keep your alligator in your bath tub. I honestly don’t know why this ever made it onto the books. Obviously, there was a problem somewhere. Still, could you imagine trying to enforce it?
4) In Beaufort, South Carolina, it is legal for a man to beat his wife, on Sunday, on the courthouse steps. This law sounds, on the surface, as if it is as evil and as sexist as is gets, but it is a law left over from a time when most parts of the world allowed wife beating as discipline for an errant spouse. This law was actually designed to protect women (while still permitting a man to maintain the order of his home), since to beat her at any other time and in any other place was illegal. (Perhaps this is one they should enforce. They could lock up a great many drunk wife-beaters like that.)
At any rate, there are a great many laws that simply get ignored because they no longer apply or were crazy minded to begin with (at least to the current mind-set.) I don’t see this as any great failure by anyone in any executive office, regardless of their party affiliation. (I wish the laws surrounding McCarthism had been similarly ignored – don’t you?)
As this relates to the sailor in the picture – about bloody time! The more I examine the issue, the more I see less the homophobia and more the fear that men seem to experience at the thought that someone might pursue them as aggressively as the typical heterosexual man pursues a woman. He doesn’t know how to handle it (How do I say no? What if he doesn’t take no for an answer? Does this mean he see something in me that I don’t know about?…and it devolves from there.) Let’s get past this and let people love who they love. That’s what makes this a really nice photo…and sentiment.
Because Congress wrote the law (DOMA) Congress has standing to defend it in court. So the Administration couldn;t stop Congress from defending it if they chose to, but the executive does not have to defend a law that they though to be unconsititutional. (For a hypothetical example – a President Perry might have chose not to defend the ACA before the Supremes, yet congress if it chose to could. Of course this is not going to happen because ACA got fasttracked.)
I didn’t include the link because the substance of the post wasn’t the law by my reaction to the photo. (You she make sure Jules see it if you can, I think she’d like it.)
I understand your original point better now. It never hurts to put a link in when referring to outside events, that way your audience knows exactly what you are talking about. But if another litigant (the Congress) can step forward to support the law in court (a mechanism that is baffling to me) then what has the Obama DOJ accomplished other than keeping their own hands clean?
As far as the gambit of not defending an existing law which is challenged in court, that is a trick which Democratic office holders have already employed in California.
The first incident of note was the failure to appeal the striking down of proposition 187. That dereliction of duty was by California Governor Gray Davis (and became one of the issues prompting his recall). The second incident of note was the failure to appeal the striking down of proposition 8.
These two incidents point out the danger of that type of abuse by executive authority. From my own political perspective, in one case the policy outcome was better and in the other the policy outcome was worse. The success of such tactics only invites more gaming of our governmental system in the future.
Funny you should mention the California AW ban. It turns out the California ban on so-called “assault-weapoons” is currently challenged in Federal Court.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/21/californias-assault-weapon-ban-challenge
The ironic thing is if California loses in lower court, a failure to appeal the case might happen just to prevent a higher court from setting a binding precedent that could threaten more gun-control laws than just the one being challenged.
There is a difference between non-enforcement and refusing to defend. Here the law is being challenged in the courts, the administration is refusing to mount a legal defense (It has allowed Congress if it wishes to take up that role.) This is not the same as not enforcing a law. (Though in practicality there is always selective enforcement of laws because there are too many laws and not enough resources for enforcement. Frankly, I think our laws need pruning.)
For example – say our state’s ‘assault’ weapons ban was currently being challenged and the Governor (however unlikely) decided to not mount a defense because he felt the law was bad. Would you be critical of him, and insist that he defend the law? I think you and I both would rejoice in his moment of what we consider sanity. I do not hold that the all administration must defend all laws, I do hold that all should be enforced,
“the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice was declining to defend the section of DOMA that preventing the recognition of gay spouses and denying those spouses benefits.”
Interesting. I hadn’t heard about that.
Aside from the issue of gay rights, this action of non-enforcement fits a very disturbing pattern of selective law enforcement by the Obama/Holder Department of Justice. From immigration law to voting rights and now gay rights, and god knows what else I haven’t heard about yet.
It all very well and good when the executive branch chooses to not enforce a law you don’t like, but what about when it doesn’t enforce a law that you do like? Who or what will compel the executive to obey the law?
Top it off with the rampant law breaking and the cover up which is the scandal enveloping Operation Fast and Furious and you have a deep cesspool of corruption at DOJ. Of course why should I expect anything less from Eric Holder considering what he allowed during his time with the Clinton Administration. And what does it say about Obama considering he choose Holder for Attorney General.