opinion@dailylobo.com
I never understood the arguments against gay marriage. What’s the big deal? My wife and I will have been married 30 years in October and we both agree that anyone crazy enough to want to get married in this day and age should be allowed to do so. Why should homosexuals be denied the misery of being married? It’s a clear case of discrimination. The divorce rate in America is still close to 50 percent. I wish them the best of luck.
Even though I don’t necessarily recommend it, there are still a lot of practical reasons to get married today. Matters of shared personal finances, legal authority, dependents and next-of-kin determinations are imperative in any long-term relationship. For many gay couples, however, these issues become far more complex.
Only nine states currently recognize same-sex unions.
The debate over the legal definition of marriage has been raging for many years. Most of the arguments against marriage equality in this country are based on Biblical scripture. Religious dogma seems to be the main reason people object to the idea of gay marriages and “nontraditional” families. Their primary motivation is the fear that the very fabric of society will somehow unravel if gay people are allowed to marry. These people are frightened and confused by the modern world, and for some reason they feel it is their duty to impose their narrow-minded, intolerant beliefs on the rest of humanity.
Opponents of gay marriage say they want to protect the “sanctity” of the union between one man and one woman. They believe the institution of marriage is somehow under attack. A small group of wealthy Christian evangelicals have managed to use their power and political clout to back up their apocalyptic paranoia with legislation. This clique of well-connected religious zealots recognized the ideological significance of trying to impose their morality on American society long before gay marriage became a major issue.
In 1995, Hawaii was on the verge of becoming the first state in the union to legalize same-sex marriages; Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 in response to that threat. DOMA denied same-sex couples rights to thousands of federal laws, programs and benefits. The legislation easily passed Congress and was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton on Sept. 21, 1996.
Section 3 of DOMA codified the nonrecognition of same-sex marriages regarding distribution of federal insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security payments, immigration status and estate taxes. It also prohibited the filing of joint federal tax returns. DOMA penalizes legally married gay and lesbian couples in states where same-sex marriages are permitted by denying them these essential benefits.
Former president Clinton and other key lawmakers have since reversed their positions on DOMA; most of them now advocate repealing the act. In 2011, the Obama administration said it would continue to enforce the law even though attorneys for the Department of Justice had already declared Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional. Attorney General Eric H. Holder said he would still enforce the law, but he would no longer defend the government’s position in court.
Controversy erupted when the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives instructed the House General Counsel to uphold the law despite the DOJ’s objections. Last month, the Supreme Court was forced to step in and determine the constitutionality of DOMA.
The result was a stunning rebuke to supporters of the act. After a week of intense and often dramatic hearings, four of the justices openly questioned the constitutionality of the law. Although they mainly focused on equal protection rights rather than the limits of federal power, some of the justices had harsh words for the House attorney chosen by the Republicans to defend the law, and for the Obama administration’s bizarre legal stance on the issue.
When Justice Elena Kagan asked House attorney Paul Clement to defend the original intent of DOMA, he admitted it was impossible. “We’ve never invoked in trying to defend the statute,” he said. But he added that the court has never struck down a statute “just because a couple of legislators may have had an improper motive.”
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Arguing against DOMA, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli maintained that bigotry is the primary motive behind the legislation. He made it clear that the law wasn’t enacted for the purpose of “uniformity, administration, caution, pausing, any of that.” He said, “There are no genuine administrative benefits to DOMA. If anything, Section 3 of DOMA makes federal administration more difficult.”
Verrilli elaborated on the true purpose of DOMA, which is “to exclude … lawfully married couples from federal benefit regimes based on a conclusion that was driven by moral disapproval.” In essence, DOMA was created by lawmakers simply because they thought being gay was “icky.” A majority of the Supreme Court Justices agreed with this finding. They appear to be in favor of striking down Section 3, which withholds federal benefits from gay married couples.
Chief Justice John Roberts, although still skeptical of the Court’s inclination, was equally tough on the Obama administration’s handling of the case. “If Obama has decided the law is unconstitutional, I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions (to stop enforcing it) rather than saying, ‘Oh, we’ll wait until the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice,’” he said.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy holds the crucial swing vote on the issue. He indicated DOMA interferes with the traditional role of state governments in deciding these matters. Kennedy said the federal laws only recognize marriages between a man and a woman, and that ruling ignores the rights of states which have come to the conclusion gay marriage is lawful.
Kennedy’s support for states’ rights in this case aligns him with the position advocated by the Court’s three women: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, plus the other “liberal” judge, Stephen Breyer. Justice Ginsburg wrote that by withholding important benefits such as tax breaks, Social Security and leave for spousal care, the law was clearly biased. “What kind of marriage is it?” she asked.
Ultimately, any attempt to limit marriage exclusively to couples of the opposite sex boils down to a lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause requires that the government “…Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It requires that all laws and government policies have a secular purpose.
America is home to millions of non-Christians and even atheists, God forbid. I know some of them personally. Why should those people have to suffer the consequences of something they don’t even believe in? Legally defining marriage in a strictly conservative, Christian context clearly favors the beliefs of one religion over all others. That’s an unconstitutional slam-dunk.
Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, summed it up best: “All people who are willing to accept the rights and responsibilities of a long-term commitment deserve equal treatment under our Constitution no matter what job they do, no matter what state they live in, no matter who they love.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
