Openly gay U. S. Rep. Barney Frank continually lives up to his name — Frank. The Democratic legislator from Massachusetts and head of the Committee on Financial Services is presently in the thick of the Congressional response to the economic crisis.
But earlier this month, he took the time to do an interview with CBS News and 365gay News, and responded to questions regarding several issues affecting LGBT people, and if they might be addressed now that a new administration is in The White House.
And in his response, he called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a homophobe. In fact, his quote was, “I wouldn’t want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court.”
Frank was referring to the issue of same-sex marriages and an eventual Supreme Court consideration of the Constitutional issues involved specifically with the Defense of Marriage Act.
Frank later defended his characterization of Scalia, citing opinions where the justice stated gay people were a “threat to society” and is “angry about the existence of gay people.”
You gotta love Frank.
Recently, the Office of Personnel Management (whose designate director, waiting for confirmation, is openly gay) had instructed insurers not to provide benefits to same-sex partners of court employees after federal judges ruled they were entitled to them.
OPM cited DOMA as the reason for the instruction: Because the law forbids same-sex marriage, the agency asserts it bars benefits as well.
Frank’s assertion that there are good arguments against the constitutionality of the federal government’s right to pick which marriages it will defend is on target. Why should the government — state or federal — care who gets married? (And really, same-sex marriage is a revenue stream that would benefit near-bankrupt municipalities and businesses everywhere.)
Or consider this: If a state wanted to (again) bar interracial couples from getting married, would everyone say that is the state’s right, or would they say the federal government needs to step in?
Traditional marriage — one man, one woman — assures the transfer of property to one’s offspring, historically and currently. Marriage as we know it also offers 1,000 other benefits that society has slowly added in over time — visitation rights, tax breaks, power of attorney.
As to the institution itself, there are the arguments about how traditional marriage assures the stability of society. But just because it is the dominant social construct in our recent history doesn’t mean that it is the only one that will work, or that is feasible. Or just.