Monday, July 1, 2013

(Related Update): Liberal hypocrisy writ large

Related Update:  In the original post below, I made a passing assertion that the government shouldn't be involved in the marriage process,  be it between heterosexuals or not.  Reason.com's Steven Greenhut explored this very idea in a recent article, the concluding paragraph of which is below:
Government neutrality -- or the closest we can get to it -- is the best way to ensure fairness and social peace on this and most other social issues. Marriage is too important of an institution to be dependent on the wiles of the state. Do we really care if the state validates our marriage licenses?
Read Greenhut's insightful article (here) to see the argument that leads to his conclusion.

Original Post: In response to the recent Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), liberal politicians have come out of the woodwork proclaiming it a great day for equality in the United States.  Aside from the related issue of why the government is even involved in the marriage process in the first place, the purpose of this OLS post is to point out that many, many of these same anti-DOMA libs today were big supporters of the law when it was passed in 1996.  From an  article at Politico (HT: Instapundit):
But Reid isn’t the only one. There was a long line of prominent Democrats Wednesday who all queued up to applaud the Supreme Court for striking down DOMA — even though they voted for it when it passed in 1996.  Even Bill Clinton — who signed the bill into law — heralded the court’s decision...Virtually all of the Democrats say, “move on, nothing to see here” — they dropped their support for DOMA years ago. But the Supreme Court ruling allowed them to blast their words of praise to the world without a hint of regret over DOMA — or even an acknowledgment that they had any role in making it the law of the land.
Read the article to see just a few of the prominent libs who backed the law originally.  As Glenn Reynolds notes, " It was opportunism then, and it’s opportunism now. Both times wrapped in self-righteous moralism, as opportunism in Washington generally is."