For the record: Obama DID NOT compare Gay marriage to Incest

[berni_mccoy]

First off, Obama didn't write the briefing, and it's extremely unlikely he was aware of it. If he is aware of it, it's only probably becausel the gay community has become outraged by it, so in that sense, it's good the community has expresse their opinion. However...

The briefing does not compare gay marriage to incest and it's not an invokation of incest. It's a citing of case law, which lawyers do, to show examples of precedence. Here, the precedence is that states are allowed to ignore or undo marriages legal in another state. This is something gays should be very aware of. If they are legally married in one state, they should not expect their rights to be honored in another state.

Here is the text that has caused the firestorm:

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Anyone using this to say Obama hates gays or is comparing gay marriage to incest is being decietful and they know it.

[AllentownJake]

1. President Obama is not as progressive as some would like on Gay rights issues

It sometimes disappoints me, however I don't think he hates Gay people. He's a politician living in a political reality.

[berni_mccoy]

3. While this may be an accurate statement, there is far too much extreme b.s. going on

and people need to call it on the floor.

[AllentownJake]

5. Its an emotional issue

If someone told me I couldn't marry the person I loved because there are some ass clowns in this country who have to interpret a 2000 year old book of morality tales literally ...I'd be pretty pissed to.

[nevergiveup]

12. Good response

It is so personal and emotional. I am confident that Obama will come around on this although certainly not as fast as I would have liked. I am gay, I am on the verge of maybe loosing my business and I have some aging health issues and my insurance is killing me. There are just so damn many problems in America today I have a difficult time deciding which one to be concerned about for the moment. For those concentrating on gay issues I say "go for it".....hold Obama's feet to the fire and don't let up.

[AllentownJake]

13. I totally agree

You don't get your civil rights by being patient and waiting your turn.

Especially when the people who are against you view you as sub-human because they attend a few religious services and pay lip service to a poor boy from Nazareth in Judea who tried to buck the system and got killed for it.

[redqueen]

15. How about being rational?

Does that help?

Most times, you can get the details and background of an issue from DU faster than from other sources. That's one reason I love this site. Yesterday, however, that was not the case.

[HughMoran]

17. I agree

I can't figure out how angering the 99.9% here that strongly support gay marriage is helpful. Stating "facts" that are clearly not true (or highly exaggerated) is, once again, not helpful.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

9. I think that only time will tell how committed he is. Right now, he doesn't seem to want

pick up the fight, which understandably is pissing folks off. I'm optimistic, however that DOMA and DADT will be eventually be addressed by Obama. I think that Obama is of the opinion that Clinton waded into the culture wars too early, which caused a lot of problems and that he doesn't want to repeat it.

Public opinion is clearly turning on this, especially DADT. Obama knows this so I think that it's just a matter of time before he moves. I understand the frustration, but I think that some patience in the end will be rewarded.

[Phx_Dem]

16. I think he doesn't want to pick this fight UNTIL health care has been

passed. DADT and DOMA is going to be a very contentious fight with GOP and possibly the Blue Dogs, so if he picks that fight before getting healthcare through, we won't get healthcare.

Everything can't be done at once, but it can all be done.

[LooseWilly]

51. And, if healthcare comes... then what else will need to be taken care of first, as well...

before DADT and DOMA are attended to? Bankruptcies? Israel/Palestine? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Veterans Benefits? Unemployment? Energy Independence? Cap and Trade implementation? The Auto Industry bankruptcy/redevelopment?...

Where does human rights stand in your priorities list? You obviously endorse whatever compromises might be made on a public option for health insurance as more important than equal rights for a portion of the political base. What else will you endorse putting it off for? Some of the things on the list above? All of the things?... A lollipop?....

"Everything can't be done at once, but it can all be done."... sure... if we have 20-1000 years. It sounds to me like you are simply de-prioritizing rights for a portion of the population that isn't you, in the name of assuaging your worries about doctor's visits. Or a selfless interest in other's doctors' visits...

[Sheepshank]

60. like it or not

Obama has a pretty weighty set of issues on his plate. So his priority is not a carbon copy of yours?...sucks. I have no doubt it will get addressed, that the there is not stopping this tide.

It would make sense to me to establish health care for every single person in the USA prior to addressing gay marriage...one less argument against gay marriage as a tax and health burden on the nation.

Like it or not, gay marriage is on everyones horizon...too many are too aware. And the awareness is relentless and marches forward....contrary to the hopes of those wanting some exclusivity to marriage. But there is no denying arguments against same sex marriage can be chipped away, one at a time to move in that direction.

Discussion on the contents of DOMA (which many have not read, but argue with fervor anyway), have included the argument that the 'costs' associated with same sex marriage are a good reason to deny equality. So eliminate those obscene ideas. Obama, if nothing else seems to be a strategist...and this strategy makes perfect sense.

[TheMadMonk]

90. LIke it or lump it, an issue that directly impacts approximately 10%...

...of the population is going to take a back seat to those issues which affect a much larger proportion of the population.

Before everyone comes down on me like a ton of bricks, take a look at the situation from another perspective. It took about 100 years for womens rights to get to where they are today, 50 odd years for civil rights and half of that again for gay rights. The rate of progress is accelerating and in all three cases (and others like them) it's the same dying breed of biggoted holdouts standing in the way.

Maybe it's not happeing as fast as we could hope, but FFS it IS happening, and it's happening a hell of a lot faster than might be expected based upon past experience.

[Neecy]

103. Stonewall was 40 years ago this month

We're done waiting.

[imdjh]

96. I'm willing to wait until after healthcare- after all he has 3 years and change to do this.

Not much I can do about it before the next election. So he has until then.

[MilesColtrane]

66. I think you may be right.

Obama may believe (whether it's true or not) that part of the reason Clinton's health care plan fell apart was because he expended some of his political capital getting that weak ass compromise, DADT into law first.

Perhaps he thinks that this strategy will accomplish the most good for the most number of people. Who knows?

I haven't made up my mind yet if he's a chess master with many irons in the fire, or a lilly livered, two faced liar on gay rights.

[Cha]

43. Very good..

Thank you, Mc.

[George II]

85. How specifically is he "not as progressive as some would like"? And where...

...in the myriad of issues he has to deal with on a daily basis and the equally myriad issues he inherited from the previous administration - economy bordering on all-out depression, TWO wars, bank failures, credit crunch, insurance failures, auto industry in the tank, terrorism (and reversing the bush administration stand on terrorism), Guantanamo bay, etc., etc., etc....

...so where would you place the issue of Gay rights?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

102. But, we knew that in the beginning, didn't we? We knew that he wasn't liberal.

And those of us who did simply bought into right-wing rhetoric and propaganda during the campaign rather than reading his record for themselves.

[elocs]

2. Damn, there's always someone who wants to confuse us with the facts. n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

6. no, but his justice department did.

we held bushco's feet to the fire for what their henchmen did.

it's dishonest of you to say the same should not happen here.

and yes -- if one of obama's lawyers -- from his justice department is using case law that is citing incest to defend DOMA -- then obama's admin -- obama is using incest as way of talking about and legally describing our relationships.

i can see how your rather hysterical hero worship would -- like a psychotropic drug might lead you to post otherwise though.

[vaberella]

20. The DOJ is AUTONOMOUS!!! Like the Supreme Court. n/t

[xchrom]

24. r-i-g-h-t -- like all of bushco's legal henchman in the justice

department running around arguing for things that fell in line with how bushco wanted them to turn out.

coincidence? or just dense?

[vaberella]

28. No, this I won't deny. But isn't it up to Holder to fire them.

I thought O could appoint people like the AG and assistant AG.

[jberryhill]

88. The DoJ didn't either

Please quote from the brief.

[PopSixSquish]

7. Last Night I Wrote the President of the United States

a rather long letter about this brief and what it contained. I expressed my supreme disappointment in the lack of leadership overall on civil rights for the GLBT community. I do not know if he will read it or if it will do any good, but I had to do something productive with my anger.

I will continue to write letters and make phone calls and do my small part to help...

[stray cat]

8. Distorting facts is never a progressive value - its ignorant or flat out lying

its no different than W or Cheney or the worst freepers. Anyone can disagree with Obama but stick to the facts! Thanks for the real facts on DU for a change.

[NY_CJ]

21. Superb. When people need to lie you have to wonder about their agenda.

[vi5]

10. Here's the thing I can understand the anger on...

If it were just the legalese in this brief....maybe there's a basis for it.
If it were just not immediately overturning DADT.....maybe there is some sort of pragmatic reasoning for that.

However, what gets to me even as a straight person is Obama's silence on these issues. It strikes me as craven political cowardice. Pragmatism is one thing. But keeping silent on these issues at best and at worst seeming flippant and nonchalant about understanding people's anger over this is another altogether.

Speak out. Say "Look here's the legal basis for this....here's why we can't do this or that right now, but we're working on it....."

But the silence as if these issues don't even exist, let alone are important to a lot of people....from someone who claimed to be SO concerned with civil rights and civil liberties.....it's disheartening and offensive to me so I can imagine it would be downright horrible for someone who is gay whose lives and very being are impacted by Obama's direction on gay rights since taking office.

I don't think he hates gays any more than Bill Clinton hated gays. But I do think that like Clinton he expects gays to not only "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military, but in political life as well.

[katandmoon]

14. "Craven political cowardice" -- BINGO

[vaberella]

22. You have no basis to even argue that. He's said many and has acted on things.

Because he's not pushing something publicly, while dealing with Health care---which the half-brained Congress seems to want to shut down before it even gets started---he's a coward?

But then with so many, he's always a coward so it's neither here nor there. When he does good mnay are NEVER found to praise him. However, when he does bad---they're almost spamming on every thread on the board that supports their anger.

[katandmoon]

26. Oh, I know, he's just too busy playing chess to counter the gay-bashing coming out of his own DOJ

[vaberella]

46. Immaturity...~sigh~ n/t

[vi5]

33. Look, I'm open to anything I may have missed....

..what has he said publicly that indicates that the rights of gay people are important to him? And that as he mentioned on the campaign trail, he would fight for?

Like I said, I'm not gay so I don't have a personal bias in the matter beyond the fact that I think basic human and civil equality is an important thing.

And personally I think it's even more offensive to tell people "Well, he's dealing with a lot of other stuff." I know that, but he manages to balance the economy and speaking out on that, and the wars and terrorism and speaking out on that, and a lot of other things. I think it's almost MORE offensive to put it that way because it's basically admitting and telling certain people that their rights and their lives aren't as important as dealing with those other things. And maybe big picture wise it's true, but then admit to it. Explain that to people. You can probably get people to understand how those things may be more important and take priority, but when you don't say anything at least in verbal and spiritual support of that issue then I'm sorry it does seem like cowardice.

What harm would come from saying "Look, I have this, that and the other thing to deal with and we're working hard on that. But I am with you and I support you and I support your rights and we will get this done as well once we can get it done right."

He's essentially done that with other issues that have angered people when what he promised doesn't match up to what he's been able to do (Gitmo, the war, the economy, etc.).


Again, if I missed an occassion where he's done this for gay people and spoken to them in this way after the advent of all these recent developments than I fully apologize. Did he make a statement on the CA supreme court upholding Prop 8? Did he make a statement on the passage of the Matthew Shephard hate crimes law? I mean I've heard his statements on the Iranian election and the shooting of Dr. Tiller, and other things which I fully concede are important. It would just be nice if with any degree of consistency he did so for this issue as well. I would like to know I'm wrong and that he has.

[vaberella]

45. Based on your statements...Obviously you don't keep up to date as to what O has done.

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/03/letter-from-barack-obama-went-unused-by-no-on-prop-8-campaign.html
or
http://hottopics.gay.com/2009/03/take-a-deep-breath-and-try-not-to-pull-your-hair-out-as-you-read-this-it-seems-that-the-highly-overpaid-consultant-who-worke.html

This letter was shown on DU and went only noticed by some people on this thread. I was one of them. People can pick and choose what they want and they always do. If it's not pushed in their face there's no way it's not being worked on or protested. Not everything is publicly pushed and in the case of Obama--when it comes to things that will bring heat on him he gets more publicity even if he's working on it. Let me give you an example...he wanted to push the stimulus package---when he had straight and heavy opposition from Dems as well as Conservatives, the news went on sensationalism. When it comes to health care, opposition is what they speak. When they think Obama is not doing enough for a community so that is the community that is given attention. This is sensationalism and propoganda.

What happened with this case is disgusting on the part of the lawyers verbiage but not on Obama. The case is considered sound and we can't pick and choose when we want Obama to run roughshod like Bush over the DOJ. Currently the DOJ is doing what it was always meant to do, function independently---however we're not used to it so we think because Obama is popular he could do anything. Well he can't and there is a division of power.

As for anything else he's done for the gay community:
This is an older article- http://www.eyesonobama.com/blog/content/id_13397/title_Obama-Speaks-Out-on-LGBT-Issues/

There is this and this has been discussed on DU but it's minute (which I agree with) in getting rights to the LGBT people...however he's doing something within his power. Most others are out of his power---due to the division of power: http://www.gayagenda.com/tag/white-house/

He also stated on his site what where he stands on Gay rights---and because he's not seeming to move on it (note what I said about media picking and choosing) the way he's moving on health care I have no reason to doubt he will move on it. Here is his WH position: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil_rights/

While he was busy pushing the budget people were whinging on this board and in other places that Obama is not moving enough on Health care. I don't know if you were aware of that. It was thread after thread and people were like he's not doing enough of this or that. Oh he's slow on this or that. Now that he's pushing health care the next thing is on the agenda for people on DU to really say he's not doing enough when his record is saying otherwise.


I hired to do a job and I gave him 4 years to complete as much as possible. I am aware he's making moves even if I can be disappointed and annoyed by it. But I will give him the courtesy of completing it. You have no idea how much I hate the war and want our troops out of Afghanistan---no idea. I came close to questioning my position to vote for Obama because of his position on Afghanistan. However I noted with the other candidates I'd probably be screwed worse. So I said, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. While it seems to me Obama is doing a Nixon in regards to Afghanistan....ie Nixon took out soldiers from Vietnam claiming to end war while moving mass troops into Cambodia.

I'm not cool with it. But once again I'm giving him the 4 years and in regards to gay rights that personal affects me, I do strongly believe he will respond to the lack of rights, accordingly and soon. I personally hope right after health care ----if he can ever get that off the burner. Because when it comes to gay rights in the Senate--- the drama with health care reform is a cake walk.

[vi5]

52. I appreciate the feedback....

...I did know about the letter. And also your third link. However, to my point....those were things that were essentially older from when he was campaigning. Yes, the articles about the letter were from 2009 but if he wrote a letter against prop 8....my timeline tells me that would have been in 2008, no?

And like I said in my earlier posts I understand why he may not necessarily be acting right now. I wouldn't take that as an excuse if I were a gay person being told that my civil rights would have to wait, but I can at least play devil's advocate on that point and understand it.

However, the fact that he has not been even a minute fraction as forceful and as vocal in his speeches as he has with healthcare, abortion, the economy, the war, etc. is what is glaring to me. When I look at all the things that he has provided forceful commentary and opinion on when they occur or are in the news, yet when something happens regarding gay rights I don't see or hear any statements.

Again, if you have any statements he may have made on these issues since taking office, I would appreciate it. The declaration of june as being gay rights month is a good example, and I thank you for that. However, as you yourself admitted....it's minute. And it also came with much less fanfare than other things he's done.

I hope I'm wrong....I want to be wrong......and yes actions speak louder than words. But I look at his record so far on gay rights and I don't see much action (which as I mentioned, given everything going on.....o.k. I'll buy that).....and I don't see nearly as many words as he seems to have for other subjects.

I'm not someone who's an alarmist on this or who demands that he run through the street waving a rainbow flag, or that he make this his number 1 priority, or even someone who has taken offense at some things that others have (his offhand remarks regarding protestors, etc.). My only point is that if I were gay I could really see why I would feel like I was someone who was taken for granted by Obama just as they were by the Clinton's.


Edited to add examples:

1) Did he issue a statement commenting on the CA Supreme Court's decision?
2) Did he issue a statement commenting on Idaho passing marriage equality? New Hampshire?
3) Did he issue a statement in support of the Matthew Shephard law passing?

Again doing so in any of these instances would require no action other than to show that he is thinking about and cares about these issues as strongly as the others, even if at this point political situations prevent him from actin more forcefully? If he did and I missed them then I'm fully open to admitting that and will apologize and admit my assesement of the situation is incorrect.

[LooseWilly]

53. There are plenty praising him whether he does good or not.

When he does good... adding our praise is redundant... we leave it to yourselves who seem always happy to do so (why interrupt your thunderous applause over his speech in Cairo, or his challenge to the Israelis to actually act in good faith with the peace process that the Israelis signed onto to stop new settlements, or what have you... when all those who laud him thick or thin are having such a good time lauding him yet again?)

When he has the DoJ arguing things like

Loving v. Virginia is not to the contrary. there the Supreme Court rejected a contention that the assertedly "equal application' of a statute prohibiting interracial marriage immunized the statute from strict scrutiny. 388 U.S. 1,8,87 S,Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). the Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to "interracial marriages involving white persons," was "designed to maintain White Supremacy" and therefore unconstitutional. Id at 11. No comparable purpose is present here, however, for DOMA does not seek in any way to advance the "supremacy" of men over women, or of women over men. Thus DOMA cannot be "traced to a ... purpose" to discriminate against either men or women.

however... despite the fact that this portion of the brief is, apparently intentionally, failing to notice that... rather than "supremacy" of men over women or vice versa... DOMA can easily be interpreted as being "traced to a ... purpose" of "supremacy" of heterosexuals over homosexuals... simply by a change in the hot button terms in the brief's wording:
(italics added for clarity)

The Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to "same sex marriages involving homosexuals" was "designed to maintain Heterosexual Supremacy" and therefore unconstitutional.

Hence, DOMA can, I would argue, based on Loving v. Virginia, be "traced to a ... purpose" to discriminate.

Likewise, and I'll go back into the brief to support this if you'd like... but I've done it on another thread and I really hate having to dig through this legal detail bullshit... likewise, a little bit of digging suggests that, while DOMA is fine with different states allowing such things as cousin marriages, marriage at 16, and so on... and DOMA will also allow Federal recognition of those marriages (provided that they are between a man and a woman)... even if other states won't recognize those marriages... in the case of same sex marriages... even where they are legally recognized in a given state, the Federal Government chooses not to recognize them... irregardless of whether other states recognize them or not.

In other words... if I live in California and marry my first cousin, the Federal Government will recognize that marriage (assuming my cousin is not of the same sex as me) despite the fact that Nevada won't recognize that marriage. On the other hand, if I'm one of the 18k or so people with a legally recognized, in California, same sex marriage... then the Federal Government will not recognize that marriage, just as Nevada won't.

So cousin marrying has more legal standing, federally, than same sex marrying.

I guess healthcare is too important to worry about anything else though... right?

[Jim Lane]

64. Loving v. Virginia dealt with race -- like it or not, the U.S. Constitution treats race differently

You're taking the view that "discrimination is discrimination", period. From the moral point of view, I agree with you that DOMA is unjust discrimination and should be repealed. From the legal point of view, however, a court must consider the terms of the Constitution.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments (known collectively as the Civil War Amendments) were prompted in large part by the desire to deal with the divisive issue of the status of blacks in the United States. Of course, they're applicable in other contexts, but the courts have held that the legal treatment of racial discrimination differs from that of other forms of discrimination. Whatever you may say about DOMA, it's not one of the "badges and incidents of slavery", a phrase used by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases in 1883 (and given a broader interpretation since then).

The result of this history is that racial discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Many other forms of discrimination, however, are subject only to the much more permissive "rational relationship" test. That's where discrimination based on sexual preference falls.

As a matter of U.S. constitutional law as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, therefore, this brief is correct in arguing that Loving is distinguishable.

A better constitutional argument is that DOMA embodies gender discrimination. Gender discrimination is in a third category of "intermediate scrutiny". I'd guess that's why the writers mentioned it -- they were aware of the argument that it's discriminatory to say that I, as a male, can marry Lindsay Lohan, but Suze Orman can't, simply because she's female.

[sam kane]

11. case law about INCEST

it is extremely unlikely that he wasn't aware of it.

talk about deceitful.

[SeattleGirl]

47. Please re-read the OP. The brief definitely does not compare

being gay with incest. I understand that you are angry about not having the right to marry like straight people do (unless you live in a state where that is now legal), but it really does no good for your anger to tip you over to being disingenuous. I think there is enough factual stuff to be angry about without exaggerating or claiming something that just isn't true.

[kestrel91316]

18. Good luck drowning out the screeching Obama haters.....

[NY_CJ]

23. LOL, and the ones allergic to facts are the loudest. Empty vessels and all that.

[panader0]

19. A marriage of first cousins is legal in New Mexico

but invalid in Arizona. The states need to adopt the sames rules nationwide, so that a couple, same-sex or not, that is legally married in one state, has their marriage recognized in any other.

[LooseWilly]

54. If I'm not mistaken, that first cousin marriage is also legal Federally...

Unlike a same sex marriage in Massachussetts, or California... which would also be invalid in Arizona.

I think, if nothing else... marriages that are legal in any given state should be given legal standing federally... while within the jurisdiction of that state. That is one of the prime motivators behind the Smelt case (the one that the DoJ filed motions to have dismissed on Friday)... and that ruling seems to me to be the bare minimum of acknowledgement owed on the topic... if it weren't for DOMA, which makes such recognition illegal.

[jberryhill]

63. "marriages that are legal in any given state should be given legal standing federally"

I think everyone here agrees with that and more.

The point here is why were people led to believe that the brief "compared gay marriage to pedophilia and incest".

[skepticscott]

69. Some hyperventilating blogger

felt like he wanted to feel even more righteous anger than the issue entitled him to, and simply made that claim up out of thin air. And since it was exactly what a lot of people on DU would like to be true, they simply parroted it all over the place, instead of actually reading the brief themselves. Thus does the information stream get polluted. Haven't seen a single apology, retraction or correction form anybody who falsely made that claim, though....not one.

[donco6]

25. They did equate same-sex marriage with incest.

So attorneys cite case law using examples where states have overruled marriages they have deemed illegal; one for incest, one for underage, and another for 1st cousin incest. The brief implies that the states have valid reasons for denying these marriages. And the examples are used in a brief supporting the right of states to create these barriers.

So how is a reasonable person not supposed to conclude that the brief writers and the very government itself believes that the obstacles put in front of incest and child-marriage are on the same plane as the barriers against same-sex marriage?

How is this not implying that same-sex marriage and incestuous marriage are both equally valid reasons for a state to deny a marriage license?

Well, there's no way it's *not* implying that. It *is* implying that. And we have every right to be incensed that such an argument would be used against us.

[Jim Lane]

48. As a lawyer and brief-writer, I disagree with your interpretation

You ask, "So how is a reasonable person not supposed to conclude that the brief writers and the very government itself believes that the obstacles put in front of incest and child-marriage are on the same plane as the barriers against same-sex marriage?"

Well, there's one sense in which they are on the same plane: The cited precedents are examples of a marriage that's valid in one jurisdiction but not in another. First cousins can marry in New Mexico but not in Arizona. A 16-year-old can marry in Indiana but not in New Jersey. People of the same sex can marry in Massachusetts but not in California.

This doesn't mean that same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to a father raping his daughter. It means only that the lawyers wanted to analyze how the legal system treats marriages that are valid in one jurisdiction but not in another, and the available examples concerned different rules about age and the prohibited degree of consanguinity. When else has the issue come up? Decades ago, states had different rules about interracial marriages, but any precedent arising from those cases would now be dubious in light of the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibiting racial restrictions. Offhand, I can't think of any other characteristic on which U.S. states currently differ in their marriage rules.

Part of the problem is the use of the term "incest". It conjures up powerful images like the one I mentioned above, of a father raping his daughter. Then when you look at the brief, at least the excerpt in the OP here, the DoJ is actually talking about the question of first-cousin marriages. There are probably quite a few couples who'd take deep offense at your implying that their marriage is "incestuous" just because they're first cousins.

[hfojvt]

68. another part is the use of the term pedophile

which conjures up images of some freak molesting a five year old.

I kinda wonder if GLBT are cool with stigmatizing somebody who marries a 16 year old. It's okay to straight up call that person a pedophile. Apparently. Even though it would be more accurate to say ephebophile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

and secondly if somebody marries a 16 year old, does not necessarily mean they are an ephebophile. Just because one person that they found love with was 16, does not mean they always prefer 16 year olds to 21 year olds, which is what the term implies. "The term ephebophilia is used only to describe the preference for mid to late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction."

[jberryhill]

73. Typically, marriages at that age are between two people of that age

Mid teenage marriages, in those states which allow them, often require court permission, and the laws are something of a holdover from the shotgun marriage approach to teen pregnancy.

But it is kind of odd that pro-marriage equality folks are now taking the position that 26 states permit "incest" because they allow first cousins to marry.

[hfojvt]

75. not that often

at least I quickly found a counter-example of a distant cousin who was born in June 1903, married in June 1929 and his wife was born Sept. 1912. The groom was 26 and the bride 16.75.

[jberryhill]

76. Well, in 1929....

I meant to refer to the present. Maybe that kind of thing still goes on in some places, but I'd be surprised. Wouldn't be the first time - life is full of surprises. I think the ages of my grandfather and grandmother at marriage in the 1920's was something like 30 and 16 as well.

This topic also inspired me to look at age of consent in various states, and that's kind of surprising too in some places.

Overall, it seems that a particular post-WWII suburban mindset about family relationships generally has been enshrined in a lot of minds as what is "normal" or even "moral".

[dsc]

93. One of the cases was that of an uncle marrying a neice

which is incest.

[Undercurrent]

27. K&R for

your intelligent, rational explanation. Thanks!

[hfojvt]

67. whoops, I am in the wrong place

see above

[bvar22]

29. When Obama was appointing conservatives to his cabinet,

...all his camp followers at DU were adamant in insisting that:

"Obama is The Leader!
He is The President.
He sets The Policy and his appointees just carry it out!
The buck stops with The President!"

Now its all like:
"Obama doesn't get involved.
He has other things to do.
He doesn't even know about this shit."

LOL

Do you guys ever get whiplash?

[madfloridian]

30. Well said.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grantcart]

32. And here is the real problem

When emotional hysterical and intellectually dishonest statements overcome the actual facts then it actually undermines our broader line of argument.

People will see the out of context exaggeration that the incest/pedophillia charge (against professional DOJ attorneys) and they will be wondering if the people making these charges are as intellectually dishonest about this point, what else are they saying about same sex marriage and full equality that are also dishonestly represented.

[ruggerson]

34. I don't think that's an issue grantcart

because almost all of the untruths, the emotion, the distortion and the hatred on this issue have come from one side of the fence. And it's not the side that wants marriage equality.

[HamdenRice]

41. It really detracts from the overall credibility of the forum, even as just a news aggregator...

which is sad. I feel kind of embarrassed telling people I post at DU now because of all the non reality based stuff that gets thrown around here since the election.

I'm just grateful that my screen name doesn't betray my real identity.

[LooseWilly]

55. Thanks for that post.

You've really contributed to the conversation. In a very "non reality based" kind of way.

If you've got something to say on the topic, say it. If you're just gonna tell me I'm an asshole... then just say that. Elsewise... be tokhmam...

[NYC_SKP]

35. Fuckin' Mob Mentality...

"I read it on a blog and I love that blogger and he's really pissed. Damn, I'm really pissed now too so don't tell me to STFU! YOU shut the fuck up!!!"

That's how it rolls, as opposed to "Well, let me do some original research, what's really going on here. Oh, I see. Hmmm. OK, I get it."

AG Jerry Brown just shot down a challenge to Prop 8 for similar reasons, not too many people are jumping on him???

I wonder why, I wonder why.....

:shrug:

BTW, I LOVE Jerry Brown.

[ruggerson]

36. You must have read that on a blog

Here are the facts as of last night:'

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage13-2009jun13,0,5786790.story

Jerry Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down
In his response to a federal lawsuit, California's attorney general maintains the ballot measure violates the U.S. Constitution.

By Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams
June 13, 2009

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown once again refused to defend Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage Friday, telling a federal judge that it violated the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down.

Brown made his arguments in response to a federal lawsuit against the state by two gay couples who contend the initiative violates federal due process and equal protection guarantees.

Over Brown's opposition, the California Supreme Court upheld the proposition last month on state, not federal, constitutional grounds, a few days after the federal suit was filed in San Francisco.

Brown's willingness to fight a state law that has been upheld by the state's highest court contrasted sharply with President Obama's decision this week to oppose a federal challenge to the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act brought in Orange County.

[NYC_SKP]

37. No, UPI (that's United Press International)

I'm not much for blogs unless they're well-sourced.
And even then, I don't go by the by the blogger's interpretation, I go by the source documents.

I don't know what the deal is with the article and it's inconsistency with today's story.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/12/Brown-Dont-suspend-Proposition-8/UPI-63831244853440

:shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

38. Is the fact that incest and pedaphilia were used as examples, the two things homophobes always bring

up when discussing gay rights, a mere coincidence?

[Jim Lane]

49. It's neither coincidence nor malevolence; it was simply routine legal research and writing

In this context, the lawyers wanted to refer to examples of marriages that are legal in one jurisdiction but not another. Laws differ about minimum age and prohibited degree of consanguinity, so those are the cases that arise, so those are the precedents that were available for the lawyers to use. (See my post #55 above for amplification.)

If they didn't use those examples, what examples SHOULD they have used?

[BR_Parkway]

50. Loving vs Virginia

[LooseWilly]

58. They actually did have the audacity to use Loving vs Virginia.

See post #60 for their use of it and my interpretation. Suffice it to say that I think that theirs is an appalling misinterpretation...

[Jim Lane]

65. The quoted excerpt doesn't "use" Loving, it distinguishes it

They're aware of the precedent that the Supreme Court struck down a state marriage law as unconstitutional discrimination. Therefore, they must distinguish it -- show why it doesn't call for a similar result here. There's no "audacity" in that. It's just routine legal argument.

See my post #72 for my response to your post #60 about Loving.

[LooseWilly]

57. How about none?

There were plenty of arguments as to standing. Further arguments were really not necessary. In fact, the inclusion of further, gratuitous, arguments could be argued to be a disproval of Obama's veracity when he claims that he supports repeal of DOMA...

[Jim Lane]

62. Here again, my perspective is that of someone who writes briefs for a living

The approach most lawyers take is, "Why use one argument when three are available." Even if I think I have a killer argument on one issue that will win for me, I go on to brief the backup arguments even if I hope they'll prove unnecessary.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

56. let me use an earlier post i wrote to ask you something

If going by your view of the brief are you of the view that a good number of states in the us is now incest states, and some others are pedophile states?

Thats what the brief is about after all, the difference in marriage laws and how some are valid in some states but not others. Some states allow 16 year olds to marry(with some restrictions/permissions), others allow first cousins to marry, a fair number bans one or both of the above.

So i personally don't see any comparing between gays and incest/pedophilia, what i see is the defense pointing out a number of cases that strengthens their case which they are duty bound to defend to the best of their ability even if they disagree with their own stance.

[LooseWilly]

59. I actually see the defense adding the comparisons to out of the ordinary marriage types

... completely unnecessarily, after they've made their arguments of standing. The standing arguments are pretty hard to contest... really... but adding all the inflammatory references to all sorts of marriage options, real and imagined... is helpful when trying to stir up a fight.

So, you wanna fight? I'll fight... you really want a fight???

[Bodhi BloodWave]

61. i do believe the cases they stated are real ones, and i have no real wish for a fight

You did however not answer my question tho

Do you view some states in the us as being Incest or pedophile states?

And as i said in my post, the defense is duty bound to do their best or they would not be doing their job.(i might not like it, but all accused are entitled to their best possible defense, even if i strongly disagree with the subject, or the person charged, and i dare bet the lawyers in this case is not to fond of their arguments themselves, they are however doing their job)

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. no more than he writes the FDA's regulations for food additives

[scheming daemons]

40. Bernie... you won't stop the emotional outburts by presenting facts

They ARE being deceitful. And yes, they DO know it.

Facts just complicate the matter.





But I admire your efforts.

[bigjohn16]

42. To think that the President is hands off on any aspect of US policy is unrealistic.

If he knew the DOJ was going to give that brief on DOMA and approved of it then that is very troubling to me. If he didn't know and has people in the DOJ not consulting the White House on such a critical issue to the left then that should be troubling to President Obama in my opinion.

[skepticscott]

70. You need to actually read law and policy on that subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8468149

Here's the relevant portion:

But....but....but it's still Obama's fault! It had to be cleared with Obama! Obama had to have OKed the brief! Obama's hand is all over this! Obama hates the gays........

WRONG!

You see, under The United States Department of Justice - United States Attorneys Manual, TITLE 1; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/... ), there is a section titled "Department of Justice Communications with the White House" (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/... ).

It reads, under Section 32:

It is imperative that there be public confidence that the laws of the United States are administered and enforced in an impartial manner. To that end, all components of the Department of Justice, including United States Attorneys' Offices, shall abide by the following procedures governing communication between the Department of Justice and the White House.

<...>

Pending Civil Investigations and Cases

The Department shall provide the White House with information about pending civil investigations or cases only when doing so is important for the performance of the President's duties and appropriate from a law enforcement or litigation perspective. Except with respect to national security matters, all initial communications that concern or may concern a pending civil investigation or a case pending at the trial level should take place only between the Office of the Counsel to the President and either the Office of the Deputy Attorney General or the Office of the Associate Attorney General, All initial communications that concern or may concern a civil case pending at the appellate level should take place only between the Office of the Counsel to the President and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, or the Office of the Solicitor General. If appropriate with regard to a particular case or investigation, the Office of the Counsel to the President and the senior Justice Department official with whom the White House is dealing will design and monitor a process for ongoing contact between the White House and the Justice Department concerning that particular matter.


What does that mean? Well, it means pretty much what it says. In order to keep politics out of the process, the Department of Justice does NOT consult with the President, nor does it asks for the President's permission, nor does it brief the President in legal matters in which the United States is a party unless it "is important for the performance of the President's duties" or deals with "national security matters."

[bigjohn16]

71. And as we know Presidents always follow the letter of the law.

To think that President Obama is hands off on any aspect of US policy is naive especially one so important to his base. If he knew then that's troubling to me in not he should be the troubled one. No matter what the case may be he needs to distance himself from this brief or risk political consequences. Don't worry this won't be the downfall of President Obama but it will stay with him if his White House doesn't make a statement about it, and it could hurt him with his base in the future.

[skepticscott]

72. No presidents clearly DON'T always follow the letter of the law

But the people on this board have spent the last 8 years arguing that they should. Until now, when some would prefer that Obama do an end run around it because a strict adherence to law and established policy is goring their ox instead. Sorry, can't have it both ways.

[bigjohn16]

74. The law is a great thing but this heinous brief will stick with him.

I'm talking politics not the law and this is not something he had no clue about in my opinion. I don't want this to be a sledgehammer some left leaning third party hits him with in 2012 so he needs to make a statement about it. It was offensive to the GLBT community and that's a big chunk of his base.

[jberryhill]

77. A Heinous Brief?

If it is sticking to him, he should consider changing.

[bigjohn16]

78. Mocking. What a lovely place this has become. nt

[jberryhill]

79. No.. just some word play... what a sanctimonious place this has become /nt

[bigjohn16]

80. Word play intended to shut down the debate

and since we're no longer talking about the issue you've done a great job. Thanks again for being so classy.

[jberryhill]

81. June 14, 2009

Shall hereafter be remembered as the day the fight for marriage equality was ended by a .jpg of a package of underwear.

I agree with your last point, and it would be a good idea for Obama to get with the legislative effort to repeal DOMA.

[bigjohn16]

82. Thanks for at least engaging on the issue I'll ignore the classless dig up front. nt

[jberryhill]

83. Thank you for ignoring my classlessness

You should have seen some of the other "Hanes Brief" pictures I was considering, though.

[donco6]

87. Except when the President DOES meddle with the DOJ

"In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-politico-in-defending.html

[jberryhill]

91. Cutting and pasting is not argument

In the instances cited, there was clear, multiple Supreme Court precedent on point to the effect that, for example, no you can't ban political advertising on public transit, since that is a direct First Amendment violation.

Those few and limited situations are immediately distinguishable from this one.

[merh]

98. Their conclusions related to these cases are not correct.

You could go pull those cases and read them for yourself rather than rely on some article, that would help you understand the legal process a little better and it might help you appreciate the fact that this article (and most on this topic) is not written to be factual as much as it is written to evoke emotion and to upset people. If you take the time to research each case you would find they are not what the authors claim they are.

I'll save you the trouble this time, but next time try to verify the information you rely on. Try to keep in mind that headnote lawyers are never very successful and often, once you read the case you can distinguish the cited cases from the case at hand.

In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems.")

In fact, George Bush did nothing, the Solicitor General he nominated and that was confirmed by the senate, acted after "the controversial statute was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [email protected]

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems. The controversial statute was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. The Solicitor General Paul Clement stated in a letter to Congress that, "the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense and will not appeal the district court's decision." Today is Congress' last day to respond to the federal appeals court in the D.C. Circuit.

Prior to the district court ruling the law unconstitutional, the DOJ was defending it in the district court. They were doing then what they are doing now in the Smelt case, they defended legislation passed by congress and signed into law by the president. They were doing their job.

DOMA has not been ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. DOJ must defend laws until they are deemed unconstitutional by a court of law.

Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases.")

Again, this case is not what the authors claim it to be. You see the DOJ did try to enforce and defend that statute in question (Section 3501) and they were trying to get Miranda overturned. The district court had granted petitioner's motion to suppress statements petitioner made to federal agents and physical evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment. The government challenged the suppression under the statute which allowed for the statement and search contrary to Miranda. The district court denied the government's motion for reconsideration and the government appealed and the court of appeals reversed. It was then appealed to SCOTUS who held that the statute was unconstitutional.

It seems that the DOJ did oppose the court's suppression of the evidence and the DOJ was originally arguing that the congressional statute allowed the statement and overruled Miranda. Originally the government defended the statute in Dickerson. It wasn't until they wrote the brief for the SCOTUS did they argue that Miranda should be upheld and the statute overturned.

George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission)

Again, a case that is not even close to Smelt v. USA. You see, the USA was not a party to the suit. The USA had not been sued. The FCC was sued by broadcasting corps seeking to overturn the minority ownership regulations. There were a couple of lawsuits consolidated in the final appeal to SCOTUS. The DOJ/Solicitor General filed amicus briefs at this stage. There were government lawyers arguing against each other in this appeal -- those who represented the FCC, those who represented the Senate and the DOJ/Solicitor General. It was a very unique appeal but it is in no way comparable to Smelt.

Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.")

Now this case was a definite power struggle suit - it is reflective of what could occur if the DOJ and the executive branch tried to do the job of the judiciary. You see, it involved congress trying to give itself judiciary powers. Congress had enacted a statute that authorized one house of congress, by resolution, to invalidate the decision of the AG to deport an alien. By statute, it is the AG that makes the decision whether to allow a particular deportable alien to remain in the United States, by statute, the AG enforces the deportation statutes. Then congress came along and gave itself the power to review that final decision of the AG.

As you can see, the facts of the case aren't even close to the Smelt case because the case dealt with a conflict in the statutes and the operations of government, eg, one branch trying to wield a power that it constitutional does not have, the law granting congress judicial powers was challenged. If the executive branch tried to exercise powers it does not have, say if DOJ/executive brand did something like determining that a statute was unconstitutional and refused to enforce or defend it, then you would have litigation intended to restore the balance of power.

The authors are not honest when they write "all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice." The DOJ defended the laws until the courts held them unconstitutional or until they were before the SCOTUS.

I can't believe they cited Metro, that case is a prime example of the president using the DOJ to try to infringe upon the protected rights of minorities. Guess they didn't read the cases they cited. Again, it is never good to rely on headnotes or a simply synopsis of the case.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David Zephyr]

84. For the record: Bush did not approve torture, Alberto Gonzales did. Same logic.

Nice attempt to pass the buck, though.

[boppers]

86. Cheney was personally involved in torture briefings.

Biden isn't getting daily reports on what brutal methods and results are being used to prevent marriage.

Shrub and Cheney asked for legal coverage to make torture legal, circumventing law.

Obama and Biden asked for process to make make gay marriage legal, within the law.

Equivocating the two is odious, and not worthy of serious consideration.

[Bluebear]

89. 'Obama and Biden asked for process to make make gay marriage legal'

When?

[merh]

92. You couldn't be more mistaken.

Bush/Cheney asked their AG to give them a legal out so they could torture. Bush and Cheney used the DOJ to be their flunkies and to write them opinions which would justify torture and would override the laws as enacted by congress which outlaw torture. Bushco was president, the CnC, he didn't believe he had to follow the laws passed by congress and he got some of the DOJ attorneys to write opinions that said he didn't have to.

The number one thing you and others tend to overlook as you complain of the "tone" of the DOJ brief is history - the history of our society.

For years under aged women, minor females, were allowed to marry. It was a part of the the culture in many states, society not only accepted it, they expected it. My grandmother was 14 when she lawfully married my 21 year old grandfather. Grandfather was not a pedophile, he was no pervert, he was no criminal. Now, the state they were married in has a law that says under 18 needs parental consent, under 16 needs court order. Society changed, the culture changed and evolved and the state laws changed to reflect the change.

The case cited in the brief that critics label as "comparing homosexal marriage to pedophilia" did not deal with pedophilia, it dealt with one state recognizing or not recognizing the lawful marriage performed in another state.

Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) held that the marriage of 16-year-old female was invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity of the 16 year old female's lawful marriage in Indiana. Indiana allowed 16 year olds to marry. New Jersey law allowed for an adult female to have her marriage annulled if she married at the age of 16.

There are some cultures to this day that allow and encourage marriages between relatives to keep the "blood line pure". The cases discussing marriage to relatives were not about incest, they were about one state not recognizing the lawful marriage of another state (or one state not sanctifying the cultural practice as enjoyed by persons of that culture).

Apparently, in 1957 New Mexico allowed first cousins to marry. Arizona did not. In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

In 1961, Italy allowed an uncle to marry his niece. Connecticut didn't recognize the marriage. Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th state".

DOMA is federal statute that says states have the right to pass laws that either restrict or allow marriages as the states deem appropriate. Thus, the cases cited were on point - they were legitimate legal argument supporting the contention that one state has refused to recognize the marriage performed in another state.

[VMI Dem]

94. The Presidents rather bigoted stance on marriage equality for gays is wrong.

I certainly wish he would evolve to a more progressive stance on this issue.

[imdjh]

95. The brief is a lie. So take your pick.

While there are apparently select cases of the states refusing to recognize a marriage performed elsewhere because it would not be legal in the given state- these are the rarest of cases and states do routinely recognize marriages performed in other states even if those marriages would not be legal in the state of later residence.

First cousin marriages performed in states where they are legal are universally recognized by the other states. Sex between adult (legal adult) and child (legal minor) routinely goes unpunished when the two have been married in states which permit such marriages. The only time these marriages are challenged is when one party in divorce or probate wants to exploit the law to achieve a favorable results- the state has never to my knowledge initiated such a case.

[MadHound]

97. Probably, but as Truman said, the buck stops here

This is Obama's DOJ, this is Obama's show, and while he may not have written these words or support these sentiments, it is his administration and the ultimate responsibility, for anything, lies with him. This is the standard that presidents are held to, like it or not.

Not to mention that Obama's relationship with the gay community is rather tenuous at best right now, and this just makes things worse. Obama needs to come out strongly against the DOMA, DADT, and gay marriage. These are not only the politically expedient things to do right now, but they are the right things to do right now.

[Touchdown]

99. Oh' well in that case. I feel soooo much better.

:eyes:

[berni_mccoy]

100. So truth doesn't matter to you as much as emotional slander?

Ok then.

[Touchdown]

101. Does it change anything?

"I didn't say you raped your mother, but you're still a faggot."

Small blessings. Too small to be of any significance.