The Defense of Marriage Act was passed on September 21, 1996, by what some would call a landslide (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House). It reads as follows:
Powers reserved to the states:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
The DOMA broken down
Part 1: Powers reserved to the states
This section essentially says, "No state has to recognize a same-sex marriage, even if it was obtained legally in another state."
Part 2: Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
Defines a marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and a spouse as the corresponding gender title (husband or wife).
What this means
Basically, gay couples do not recieve any of the federal benefits of marriage*, including:
- Social Security benefits
- Veterans' benefits
- Health insurance
- Medicaid
- Hospital visitation
- Estate tax reduction
- Retirement savings
- Pension increase
- Family leave (depends on employer)
- Armed Forces employment ("Don't ask, don't tell")
My opinion
Part One totally circumvents the Supremacy Clause, by placing state power above the federal power. It's basically saying "make your OWN decision, assholes." This I don't argue, every state has the right to handle its own marriages.
Part Two, however, is another story. By defining a marriage as a union between one man and one woman, it's excluding a very specific minority from the benefits it deserves. This is, quite simply, a modern form of the anti-Black laws in the pre-1960s, and I believe Civil Unions are a reincarnation of the "separate but equal" ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson from the 1890s, and we know how well that worked out.
tl;dr
This law should not even exist in the first place. Part Two is a violation of human rights, therefore Part One is just another redundant statute.
*Note that in listing these, I mean "the marriage aspect of," not that homosexuals do not receive them entirely.
0 comments:
Post a Comment