The Defense of Marriage Act was another in a series of religious political moves to control human behavior through the force of law. Hard to believe that President Clinton signed it but these things are never done in a vacuum. I wonder what he got in return for his vote in 1996.
It took five people to choose federal policy towards fairness. Imagine that.
The amazing thing is that 4 *cough* judges *cough* voted to retain a law that essentially discriminates between those marriages that have two similar sex organs and those that have one of each. How in the freaking world can one ever think that federal law should be so biased? Just goes to show you that all that education and thinking about the law makes one as blind as Lady Justice. Or at least shortsighted. (What will they do with transvestites? I don’t want to think about it.)
But here’s the thing: I am opposed to gay marriage also if it gives any power to force churches to marry gay persons. I think that some rights end where the church door begins.A church is a group of people who (more or less) agree with a set of tenets on what is right to be a member of their church. If that belief is that marriage is the union of two opposite sex people then that church is not obligated to marry gay people. I know that some say that isn’t what today’s fight is about, but it will be a fight one day to force a church to marry any two people with a valid marriage license. This should not be the case.
So if the DOMA was Defense of Church Act, I would support the law that says churches don’t have to marry any two persons with a license. They have the right to choose who they will marry without worrying about lawsuits or such.
I find it completely acceptable that federal law supports the union of two people as the states define that union.(i.e. Federal law supports gay marriage in states that recognize gay marriage but does not recognize it in states that do not have gay marriage.) I also find it acceptable if the federal government defines a union that will be recognized under federal law. One cannot marry one’s pet, car, or national monument in my opinion and I hope that everyone agrees. But my fear is that someone will not agree and want their pet elephant of the past 50 years to be entitled to their insurance benefits because they have lived as a couple for so long and both have shared equally in the relationship.That is pap. But it might happen soon if Congress does not pay attention.
DOMA’s “demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law,” the majority ruled. “This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.” DOMA, the majority said, “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples” and “makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”
Ahhh, it is all about feelings of others rather than the morality or illogical nature of the darn law in the first place. I don’t particularly care that somebody feels bad. I care that the law is fair and just and it wasn’t in this case.
Thank God for five but do they really have to say that it is all about the children and how others ‘feel’? Sheesh. (Time for a whiskey now. I’ve got to wash the taste of milquetoast out of my mind.)
In summary, I am glad that DOMA was struck down. The federal government does not have to give permission for one state to reject what another state recognizes. I am pleased to see this specific definition of marriage rejected because it sets up a two-level marriage benefit system across America. I sigh that the federal government cannot think itself out of any room with open windows and locked doors.
Thanks for the points on the scoreboard, Supremes, but you play an ugly game.