Marriott Pushes For Doma Repeal

[california boy]

Mormon-founded Marriott joins push against anti-gay marriage law

One of the nation's leading gay-rights advocacy groups, the Human Rights Campaign, has formed a coalition of major companies calling for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

It's no surprise, of course, that the HRC in Washington would use its considerable clout to organize big businesses to fight DOMA, the law that excludes recognition of same-sex marriages.

What will be a surprise to many is that one of the first companies to join the effort was Marriott International Inc., which was founded by a devout Mormon, John Willard Marriott.

Do you agree with John Willard Marriott and the Marriott corporation? Do you support the appeal of the Defense of Marriage Act? He is not saying he supports gay marriage, he is saying he supports the rights of individuals and states. If the state that you live in has legalized gay marriage, should the federal government respect the right of that state to legally recognize those marriages? Is this in conflict with church belief?

In an interview last year with Business Insider, Bill Marriott explained that he personally believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. But he said he does not mix his views on the subject with operation of the business.

"We have to take care of our people, regardless of their sexual orientation or anything else," Bill Marriott said."We have all the American values: the values of hard work, the values of integrity, the values of fairness and respect."

He further pointed out, "Our church is very much opposed to alcohol and we're probably one of the biggest sales engines of liquor in the United States. I don't drink. We serve a lot of liquor."

[DavidB]

The repeal of DOMA, to make marriage a State issue, would not succeed in stopping ssm.

As I understand it, DOMA has the effect of circumventing the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the US Constitution. Without DOMA, all states would have to treat ssm couples as a married couple.

[california boy]

I think states can still decide whether they will recognize gay marriage unless the supreme court rules otherwise. Mostly the appeal of DOMA will stop the federal government from discriminating against gay couples that are legally married. For example allowing a joint tax return, survivor benefits from Social Security or breaking up marriages and sending one of the married partners back to their country of origin rather than allowing for immigration.

[Sky]

The profitability and good reputation of the company trumps over private religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs are becoming less and less popular. Hardly anything new there.

Corporate America, from what I can tell, is largely behind the push to legalize same-sex marriage. But they never were the best gauges of morality in society anyway.

Anybody know if Marriott still puts a copy of The Book of Mormon in each hotel room, along with the Bible? Maybe that balances things out a bit?

[Saints Alive]

Anybody know if Marriott still puts a copy of The Book of Mormon in each hotel room, along with the Bible? Maybe that balances things out a bit?

They did last time I stayed there. However, I doubt I will be staying there ever again.

[rpn]

I do not support the repeal of DOMA, because it is the only thing between state choice of whether or not to recognize gay marriage or not.

I do think that the part of DOMA that prohibits federal government benefits for same gender spouses should be repealed so long as the marriage is being lived in a state that recognizes ssm.

[sunstoned]

They did last time I stayed there. However, I doubt I will be staying there ever again.

I am in a Marrotte Cortyard room right now, and there is both the BoM and Bible in the nightstand drawer.

[thesometimesaint]

I do not support the repeal of DOMA, because it is the only thing between state choice of whether or not to recognize gay marriage or not.

I do think that the part of DOMA that prohibits federal government benefits for same gender spouses should be repealed so long as the marriage is being lived in a state that recognizes ssm.

DOMA probably wouldn't survive an appeal to the Equal Protection Amendment of the US Constitution.

[Zeta-Flux]

For those interested in the purpose of DOMA, and the thought process of those who passed and support it, I recommend this brief summary of the House of Representative's Brief in support of DOMA: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/338451/house-representatives-supreme-court-brief-defense-doma-ed-whelan

[Zeta-Flux]

To answer the questions asked in the opening post (with his words bolded):

1. Do you agree with John Willard Marriott and the Marriott corporation?

No.

2. Do you support the appeal of the Defense of Marriage Act?

No. Especially when a super-majority of the states have enacted laws/amendments defining marriage as a dual-gendered institution.

3. He is not saying he supports gay marriage, he is saying he supports the rights of individuals and states.

Actually, this has nothing to do with the rights of states (although some of the courts have gotten that wrong). It has to do with the Federal Government defining marriage for the purposes of federal law. The states are, apparently, free to define law for purposes of state law as they see fit.

4. If the state that you live in has legalized gay marriage, should the federal government respect the right of that state to legally recognize those marriages?

Yes, they should respect the right of a state to make state laws. And, according to current law, they do so. DOMA does not infringe on a state's right to define marriage for the purposes of state law. It only defines marriage for the purposes of federal law.

5. Is this in conflict with church belief?

I don't think so.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Zeta-Flux

[DavidB]

While the 10th Amendment might leave marriage as a matter to the States, US history would demonstrate that Congress has involved itself in marriage since the anti-polygamy measures of the 1800's. This would tend to point toward marriage being a matter not solely left to the States or the people. However, regardless of who can make laws concerning marriage the 14th amendment still applies and the judicial standards thereunto.

I still do not understand how Congress can exempt States from full faith and credit obligations. Such a cherry picking of the Constitution serves to nullify the Constitution reducing it to a la carte rights and obligations.

[TAO]

@DavidB, all laws and right in the states have limits. One could say that gay marriage is a limit to full faith and credit, just as hate speech is a limit to free speech. Of course, this will be left up to interpretation of Congress and the Courts.

[DavidB]

Limits on speech are judicial constructs based on the "right" of the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution means

Not applying full faith and credit is simply cafeteria style Constitutionalism, which serves only to erode the meaning and purpose of the Constitution.

Edited February 3, 2013 by DavidB

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

Mere social acceptability isn't a good reason to exclude from law. There must be an overriding necessity for any group to be excluded from the protections of law.

The US Constitution allows us to be just as hateful as we want to be. It is when we do something because of that hate that the law comes into play. Hate is a aggravating circumstance and doesn't go to the fact of the crime.

The Motto of American jurisprudence is "Equal Justice Under Law".

[Sky]

I just came across this news article. Looks like the Church has filed a brief with the Supreme Court asking it to uphold Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

[DavidB]

" “The people of California violated no one’s civil rights when they adopted Proposition 8. Their twice-expressed preference for the traditional definition of marriage over an untested rival conception was thoroughly rational. It is therefore thoroughly constitutional,” Keetch wrote in the Prop. 8 brief."

Not a very accurate statement. But it is not as though briefs have to be accurate.

[Zeta-Flux]

I still do not understand how Congress can exempt States from full faith and credit obligations. Such a cherry picking of the Constitution serves to nullify the Constitution reducing it to a la carte rights and obligations.

I don't understand why you think that the full faith and credit clause somehow authorizes one state to dictate to all the others.

It only says that the other states give full faith and credit to the legal acts of the other states. It does not say that they must, within their own boundaries, live by the decisions in other states.

To give a simple analogy, suppose state A bans concealed handguns. Suppose I'm in state B, which allows concealed handguns, and even gives permits. When I step into state A with my gun, must they recognize my permit? Must they give it full faith and credit? They recognize my permit as valid in state B, but not in state A.

Or, to be more precise, as the Supreme Court said in 1939: "[T]here are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."

[Zeta-Flux]

" “The people of California violated no one’s civil rights when they adopted Proposition 8. Their twice-expressed preference for the traditional definition of marriage over an untested rival conception was thoroughly rational. It is therefore thoroughly constitutional,” Keetch wrote in the Prop. 8 brief."

Not a very accurate statement. But it is not as though briefs have to be accurate.

What is inaccurate in your opinion?

[california boy]

I just came across this news article. Looks like the Church has filed a brief with the Supreme Court asking it to uphold Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Can anyone figure out what the churches argument for prop 8 is other than it doesn't match our religious beliefs? That sounds irrelevant to me when it comes to the law.

[TAO]

Limits on speech are judicial constructs based on the "right" of the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution means

And there can be a similar limit on any clause in the Constitution or other documents which we use to govern. To give you an idea, ALL rights given to the people are subject to restriction, as the courts see fit. It doesn't matter whether it's 'right' or not.

Not applying full faith and credit is simply cafeteria style Constitutionalism, which serves only to erode the meaning and purpose of the Constitution.

I could say the same thing about hate speech, or other forms of unprotected speech, really. Some people think it's justified, and some people think it isn't.

Creating laws is inherently unfair to one group or another. But we've never minded that.

[TAO]

Eh, I'm feeling I'm getting to political. If this is beyond your standards mods, please remove it. Thanks.

Now to the actual post.

TAO:

Mere social acceptability isn't a good reason to exclude from law.

Why do you think we have laws against discrimination for employers? It's because discrimination isn't socially acceptable. We take away the right of employers to not employ for whatever reason because we feel that people have a right not to be denied a job for such a reason. That's social acceptance policy, by definition.

Social acceptability is a commonly used reason to support or not support laws. Whether it is right or not is a matter of opinion.

There must be an overriding necessity for any group to be excluded from the protections of law.

What is 'necessary' is a matter of opinion and perspective.

The US Constitution allows us to be just as hateful as we want to be. It is when we do something because of that hate that the law comes into play. Hate is a aggravating circumstance and doesn't go to the fact of the crime.

Hate Speech doesn't constitute someone going and doing something; it constitutes saying something to promote violent hateful actions in others (under the current interpretation of law). So no, I'm going to have to disagree. The current interpretation of the US Constitution does not allow us to be as hateful as we wish.

The Motto of American jurisprudence is "Equal Justice Under Law".

And what 'equality' is, and where it is okay is going to be a matter of interpretation and opinion. To give an example, I don't see people advocating for bacteria rights. Equality is very much a subject where people have different ideas on what it is; there isn't a simple definition to it.

Edited February 4, 2013 by TAO