OPINION
LAWRENCE JOURNAL-WORLD LJWorld.com Saturday, June 29, 2013 WHERE TO WRITE
Federal President Barack Obama White House, Washington, D.C. 20500; (202) 456-1111 Online comments: www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran (R) Russell Senate Office Building, Courtyard 4 Washington, D.C. 20510; (202) 224-6521; Website: www.moran.senate.gov U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts (R) 109 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510; (202) 224-4774; Website: www.roberts.senate.gov U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-1st District) 126 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515; (202) 225-2715; Website: www.huelskamp.house.gov U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-2nd District) 1122 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515; (202) 225-6601; Website: www.lynnjenkins.house.gov U.S. Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-3rd District) 214 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515; (202) 225-2865; Website: www.yoder.house.gov U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-4th District) 107 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515; (202) 225-6216; Website: www.pompeo.house.gov
State Gov. Sam Brownback (R) Suite 212-S, State Capitol, Topeka 66612 (785) 296-3232 or (877) 579-6757 governor@state.ks.us Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) 1st Floor, 120 S.W. 10th Ave., Topeka 66612 (785) 296-4564; sos@sos. ks.gov Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R) 2nd Floor, 120 S.W. 10th Ave., Topeka 66612 (785) 296-2215; general @ksag.org Treasurer Ron Estes (R) 900 S.W. Jackson St., Suite 201, Topeka 66612 (785) 296-3171; ron@treasurer.ks.gov Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger (R) 420 S.W. Ninth St., Topeka 66612 (785) 296-3071 or (800) 432-2484 commissioner@ksinsurance.org
State Board of Education Janet Waugh, (D-District 1) 916 S. 57th Terrace, Kansas City, KS 66106 (913) 287-5165; JWaugh1052@aol.com Carolyn Wims-Campbell, (D-District 4) 3824 SE Illinois Ave., Topeka 66609 (785) 266-3798; campbell4kansasboe@verizon.net
Kansas Board of Regents 1000 S.W. Jackson St., Suite 520, Topeka, KS 66612; (785) 296-3421 www.kansasregents.org Tim Emert, Independence, chairman Shane Bangerter, Dodge City Ann Brandau-Murguia, Kansas City, Kan. Mildred Edwards, Wichita Helen Van Etten, Topeka Fred Logan Jr., Leawood Ed McKechnie, Arcadia Robba Moran, Hays Kenny Wilk, Lansing Andy Tompkins, president and CEO
9A
Ruling sets stage to nationalize gay marriage WASHINGTON — Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages even in states that have legalized it. This week, the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional. There are two possible grounds, distinct and in some ways contradictory, for doing so. The curious thing about the court’s DOMA decision is that it contains both rationales. The first is federalism. Marriage is the province
Charles Krauthammer letters@charleskrauthammer.com
“
He understood immediately that once the court finds it unconstitutional to discriminate between gay and straight couples, nationalizing gay marriage is just one step away.”
of the states. Each state decides who is married and who is not. The federal government may not intrude. It must therefore recognize gay marriage where it has been legalized. If that were the essence of the argument, the court’s 5-4 decision would have been constitutionally conservative, neither nationalizing nor
delegitimizing gay marriage. It would allow the issue to evolve over time as the people decide state by state. It would thus be the antithesis of Roe v. Wade. That judicial fiat swept away every state abortion law that did not conform to the court’s idea of what abortion law should be. Even many liberal supporters of abortion rights have admitted that Roe was an unfortunate way to change the law. It prevented a stable social settlement of an issue, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, that at the time was headed in the reform direction. The Roe ruling removed abortion from the political arena, thus disenfranchising the citizenry, tainting the resolution of the question and leaving us with 40 years of social strife. On the face of it, the court avoided that disaster regarding same-sex
marriage by adopting judicial modesty. Gay marriage? You, Washington, have no business meddling in state business. To those married and living where such marriage is recognized, you must provide the normal federal spousal benefits, etc. Otherwise, you don’t. Good outcome. It allows popular sentiments on gay marriage to translate themselves democratically into law. Which in turn allows, in contradistinction to abortion, a political settlement of the question state by state. It may not satisfy everyone, but it does give everyone a voice in the disposition of the issue and a sense of the legitimacy of the outcome. Except that in the DOMA decision, the court added a second rationale: equal protection. In states with same-sex marriage, Washington must give the same federal benefits to
gay couples as to straight couples because to do otherwise is to discriminate against the gay couples. After all, they are equally married in their states. For Washington to discriminate against them is to deny them equal protection of the laws. Such discrimination is nothing more than irrational animus — and therefore constitutionally inadmissible. But notice what that second rationale does. If the argument is just federalism, the court is saying: Each state decides — and we, the court, are out of here. But if the argument is equal protection, one question is left hanging. Why should equal protection apply only in states that recognize gay marriage? Why doesn’t it apply equally — indeed, even perhaps more forcefully — to gays who want to marry in states that refuse to marry them?
If discriminating (regarding federal benefits) between a gay couple and a straight couple is prohibited in New York where gay marriage is legal — by what logic is discrimination permitted in Texas where a gay couple is prevented from marrying in the first place? Which is exactly where the majority’s second rationale leads — nationalizing gay marriage, the way Roe nationalized abortion. This is certainly why David Boies, the lead attorney in the companion Proposition 8 case, was so jubilant when he came out onto the courthouse steps after the ruling. He understood immediately that once the court finds it unconstitutional to discriminate between gay and straight couples, nationalizing gay marriage is just one step away. So why didn’t Justice Anthony Kennedy, the traditional swing vote who wrote the majority opinion with the court’s four liberals, take that step? Why did he avoid doing the full Roe — nationalizing the procedure in question and declaring the subject now closed? I suspect he thought it would be a bridge too far. At least for today. But he knows that the double rationale underlying his DOMA opinion has planted the seed for going Roe next time. It was prudence, not logic, that stayed his hand. “The only thing that will ‘confine’ the court’s holding,” wrote dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia with a bit less delicacy, “is its sense of what it can get away with.” Next case — Kennedy & Co. go all the way. — Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.
PUBLIC FORUM
Tuition blame
in terms of public good and less according to party lines. Thanks Sandy Praeger! To the editor: Don Conrad, This week, I attended orientation at Lawrence Kansas University. My son is a freshman, an exciting time in his life, and I am thrilled for his educational journey to continue at a university so rich in To the editor: history and academic excellence. I atI do understand why the Kansas ultratended the financial aid session, and the consrvative politicians’ whole purpose presenter was correct in telling us that in life is to support the big money couneducation is expensive, but ignorance is try club fat cats. What I don’t understand even more costly. is why Kansas residents continue to vote This would have been the perfect opfor them. Do the people believe that corportunity to discuss the recent, dramatic porate executives should be given a free increase in tuition and how it came to be. pass while common Kansans who work Parents, the conservatives in the Kansas for a living pay all the taxes? Legislature slashed funding for higher One of the most blatant examples of education and Gov. Brownback signed our elected representatives’ committhose cuts into law, directly generating ment to the top 1 percent came during the that tuition hike. I understand the unipresident’s State of the Union Address. versity is increasing tuition to maintain He said that he wanted to confront the standards and quality, but I hope they problems of equal pay for equal work for take the opportunity to educate future women and step up efforts to stop dostudents and parents attending orientamestic abuse. After he made those statetion what to expect, and more imporments, the camera focused on our 2nd tantly, why it happened. District congresswoman. She scrunched Kathy Cook, up her face and shook her head, “no.” Shawnee (She appears about 34 minutes into the State of the Union video posted on nytimes.com.) I found it impossible to believe, but then I remembered who she To the editor: was and what she stood for. Her puppet Again our pride and thanks is owed to masters do not want to give equal pay to Sandy Praeger, civil servant, proponent women and couldn’t care less about doof good policies and decisions. Lawmestic violence, therefore our congressrence is indebted to her for commendwoman is against it. able performance in complex times. Someone must be voting for these We regret this is her last term. Many politicians. And you know the elecof us would want to ask for more leadtions in Kansas must be fair and the ership from her. This is our loss, a loss votes counted properly; our secrefor the state and for the GOP. Who will tary of state has that responsibility, pick up her mantle? the same secretary of state who is the We are disappointed. Changing parprimary consultant to write voter supties she ruled out, along with further pression legislation for the tea party political aspirations. Her example as a states. Is that a scary thought or what? good citizen, espousing and working for issues above party lines, is instrucE. Kent Hayes, tive for all. We need more leadership Lawrence
Puppet masters
Civil servant
LAWRENCE
JOURNAL-WORLD ESTABLISHED 1891
W.C. Simons (1871-1952); Publisher, 1891-1944 Dolph Simons Sr. (1904-1989) Publisher, 1944-1962; Editor, 1950-1979
Dolph C. Simons Jr., Editor Mark Potts, Vice President of Content Susan Cantrell, Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Media Division Mike Countryman, Director of Circulation
What the Lawrence Journal-World stands for
®
Ed Ciambrone, Production Manager Ann Gardner, Editorial Page Editor Julie Wright, Managing Editor
Letters Policy
Letters to the Public Forum should be 250 words or less, be of public interest and should avoid name-calling and libelous language. The Journal-World reserves the right to edit letters, as long as viewpoints are not altered. By submitting letters, you grant the Journal-World a nonexclusive license to publish, copy and distribute your work, while acknowledging that you are the author of the work. Letters may be submitted by mail to Box 888, Lawrence Ks. 66044 or by e-mail to: letters@ljworld.com.
THE WORLD COMPANY
Dolph C. Simons Jr., Chairman
Accurate and fair news reporting.
No mixing of editorial opinion with reporting of the news.
Safeguarding the rights of all citizens regardless of race, creed or economic stature.
Sympathy and understanding for all who are disadvantaged or oppressed.
Exposure of any dishonesty in public affairs.
Support of projects that make our community a better place to live.
Dolph C. Simons III, President, Newspapers Division
Dan C. Simons,
President, Electronics Division
Suzanne Schlicht, Chief Operating Officer
Ralph Gage, Director, Special Projects