Gabriel Arana is a senior editor at The American Prospect. His articles on gay rights, immigration, and media have appeared in publications including The Nation, Salon, The Advocate, and The Daily Beast. To contact him, visit his website.
Protesters carry American and Mexican flags along a march calling for a boycott of Arizona. (Sipa Press via AP Images/Krista Kennell)
Today, a federal judge will hear arguments on whether Arizona's controversial "papers, please" immigration law, SB 1070, should go into effect next Thursday as planned. The Justice Department -- which is arguing that SB 1070 usurps the federal government's constitutional authority to regulate citizenship -- has asked for a preliminary injunction until the court can try the case.
In response to last week's court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in the states, anti-gay-marriage crusader Maggie Gallagher predictably called the proceedings a "sham trial" and the judge's decision a "moral outrage" and "intellectually absurd." Which is what Gallagher seems to say about every gay-rights trial that does not go her way. What's interesting about her comments on CBN is that she accuses the Massachusetts judge of defining "marriage" for the rest of the country:
In response to the Justice Department's lawsuit [PDF] against Arizona and similar challenges from various civil-rights groups and law-enforcement agencies, Adam and I havenoted that for all the outcry over its potential for civil-rights violations, the legal challenges to SB 1070 center around whether the state is pre-empting the federal go