President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law “Unconstitutional”

Way to go Obama. Discrimination against gay families is finally on it’s way out. Hopefully people can let go of their prejudices and just allow these families equal treatment under the law already.

About time, it’s prejudice that is destroying this country.

I can’t tell you how happy. This makes me feel. As a 19 year old lesbian, I have been thinking seriously about my future. I do want a family of my own and a wife. But having to worry weither or not my marriage would be recognized if I chose to move is so stress ful. On an ending note.. did you know that in 25 states it is legal to marry your first cousin..

Wow. As I am personally affected by this, I am relieved to see yet another unjust barrier begin to come down. Thank you.

“which challenge a section of DOMA that defines marriage for federal purposes as only between one man and one woman.” – ABC News
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
How could anyone challenge something as common sense as that?
Marriage is the Union of a Man and a Woman.
Period.
When two people of the same sex form a union it is a different thing.
Call it what it is – Garriage.
The Gay community should then pursue whatever rights it can get as Garried people.
Problem solved.

I tend to agree, but don’t the courts normally decide this sort of thing when challenged? Obama just gets to make a command decision here? Obama “instructs” the Justice Department? Wow!

If he feels so strongly, why doesn’t he have legislation introduced to repeal the law and let the people’s representatives and senators debate and vote on the matter? He won’t because that’s the “socialist way”. It’s as close to dictatorial as you’ll ever get.

This is rather strange. I never heard of the president ordering the Justice Department around. I’m beginning to think Obama is really clueless now.

Just another example that Obama has NOT veered toward the center as he would like voters to believe… This is in addition to inciting the indefensible budget-busting position of the unions in Wisconsin…. Obama must stay on the side of gays and unions to get re-elected!!!

Reading comprehension disorder rears its ugly head again. The Executive branch will continue to enforce the law. But it will no longer defend the law against challenges from the Judicial branch.
Keeping the Justice Department out of the court battles could save taxpayers millions.

Wow, more and more this character Obama is showing his despotic tendencies. As I’ve said before Africa’s present is America’s future under this character. Divisiveness, food shortages, inflation, ruined economies, strongman power-grabbers, ethnic tensions, crime, etc.

Hm…funny. I thought JUDGES ruled whether laws were constitutional or not based on a government system we like to call CHECKS AND BALANCES. But no, no, go ahead and cancel out whatever laws you don’t like. I mean, it’s just like organizing a community… where no one else has any say.

Unconstitutional didn’t bother him, with health care.

Oh! I get it now. He’s simply campaigning. Whew! I thought he just made himself king.

failure, racist, incompetent joke and disgrace to America known as “holder” to be fired. And, if the DOJ continues to not do the proper job, IT MUST BE DE-FUNDED.
Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot
==========================================
That sound you hear is of emails being shredded and hard drives being tossed out the window as Congressman Issa begins his investigation of the Eric Holder DOJ

To be honest I think there should not be a government recognition of marriage that would do anything other than stating that two people calling themselves married due to their religion. Marriage is a religious thing. There is nothing in the natural world that at birth which makes marriage mandatory to have children or to live. Marriage is a made up by the animals we call human that have the notion of particular values of life that vary from person to person. The idea of marriage is to become one until death. It is a promise and if any part of that “one” does something wrong, the definition of the “one” means that they all in that marriage are responsible. That does not sound like a logical and reasonable way of living. There should not be any benefit of marriage other than having a religious support of people to help each other mutually in that marriage. In stating this, since religion is a religious thing, anyone should be able to say they are married to anyone as long as the other party agrees and no one, not even the government has the right to say otherwise. When I was born into this world, I was born into a place that already had laws that humans made up and I am forced to go by them even though it is not my choice. Only if I could have known all of this before I was born, maybe I would have changed my mind about life.

Alright! Finally we can move forward towards equality for everyone, the way America is supposed to be. For all you fraidy-cats that are hiding your fear behind your bigotry WAKE UP! the ways of the past are no more. The youth of America believe in equality under the law for everyone!

I thought Obama was opposed to gay marriage – campaign questions?

Obama is not king,he can not just declare a constitutional passed law,that he does not like, out. It smacks of infrigement on civil liberties and is not the way government works.

How could Clinton have done something wrong? I blame Bush!

Who does he think he is? We have laws, he can not decide to just not follow the ones that he doesn’t agree with. This man has gone to far and needs to be recalled or impeached. Maybe he is trying to change the subject since he has done such a bad job in foreign affairs and states rights.

Um… I think that is the job of the Supreme Court NOT the president.

Right on Obama! This is what it means to lead and to uphold the rights of all Americans to full equality. BTW, where are the jobs Speaker Boehner?

It still amazes me that so many can’t STAND the fact that we have a Constitutional scholar and moderate in the White House instead of a dumb-ass “cowboy” (as a 3rd generation Texan, I resent the hell out of Bush Jr. calling himself such…he was raised in Connecticut and driven to private school in a LIMO, people…be real!) C student, draft dodger, war-monger who set new records on the debt, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the top few percent, expansion of the federal government and its powers and Constitutional violations (wait, I think Reagan trumped him on that last one, come to think of it) and drove us into the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression. But hey, he was WHITE, right? SOO sick of all the knee-jerk Obama bashing…get over it…you LOST the election, ok? In a LANDSLIDE. The people spoke. Deal with it and show this President and the office the respect you demanded everyone show Bush/the office when HE was in it. This is long overdue and along the lines of the decision to NOT actively enforce federal drug laws against those producing/using medical pot in states where it is legal. It is actually LESS government in action, not some federal dictatorship. And BTW, the health insurance reform bill is perfectly constitutional, on several grounds (regulation of interstate commerce, taxation authority, promotion of the general welfare). Our current President used to TEACH the Constitution…you think he is so ignorant as to sign into law something which violates it? LOL. Wow.

Posted by: Yep I said that | Feb 23, 2011 2:24:06 PM
Obama’s cautious approach to Libya is based on his desire to get Americans out of Libya safely first.

Hello? What about Supreme Court is the ONLY branch that can rule a law to be unconstitutional don’t you understand.
This is a clear overreach by the executive branch.
The president has a responsibility to respect the Supreme Court.
“Each branch should vigorously seek to protect its legitimate powers, and each branch should recognize the legitimacy of the others’ concerns.”

it will take a lifetime to reverse the course odumma has set for the nation. that is assuming the nation continues to exist. one day we may all wake up to find ourselves being stoned to death as infidels. obumma says he doesn’t support gay marriage but what he is really saying is he will dump michelle once it is ok to come out.

“Now, if we could only manage to get Exxon et al to pay TAXES on their record profits….”
Obama could lead that effort. Right after he stops the bailing out Wall Street.

Michael, Evidently the President is confodent in his marriage where you most likely are not – usually fear comes from insucurity.

Hysterical wrote: “Obama could lead that effort. Right after he stops the bailing out Wall Street.” That was BUSH’S baby…his last act before leaving office. The only thing Obama changed was adding a provision to require that the taxpayer money be PAID BACK (and most of it already has been). Otherwise, it would have been just another Republican grand theft like the savings and loan fiasco. And your point was?

That was BUSH’S baby…his last act before leaving office.”
I remember Obama being forced to sign the bill in 2008. Just as he was forced to hire Immelt, take about $1 million in campaign contributions from GS, …

Obama is gay. Michelle is a man.

Raven wrote:
“the health insurance reform bill is perfectly constitutional, on several grounds (regulation of interstate commerce, taxation authority, promotion of the general welfare”
Regulation of interstate commerce — no sorry. A person who doesnt buy a product is not ‘engaging in commerce’. Just the opposite. He is ‘not engaging in commerce’. You cant redefine “inaction” as “action”.
Taxation authority — no sorry. Buying a product from a private company isnt “paying a tax”. Taxes get paid to the government, not business. Remember? Funny, even Obama can’t seem to decide whether he believes this whopper or not. First he said it wasnt a tax, now he claims it is. Obama the ‘Constitutional scholar’ seems a bit confused.
Promotion of general welfare — no sorry. If the government can force you to buy insurance under the pretense that ‘it helps the country’ then they can force you to buy vegetables, or a health club membership, or a weight loss video or vitamins or a new car or a house or anything else under the same premise. “hey it helps the country bozo you’re gonna buy it. Do your part to help the economy” uh….no
Basically you’re saying that the framers of our Constitution wanted to give us a central government of UNLIMITED power. No, they didn’t want to, and they didn’t set it up that way. You are imagining things in your totalitarian dreams.
You’re no Constitutional scholar, Raven.

You’re no Constitutional scholar, Raven.
Posted by: Joe White | Feb 23, 2011 3:10:50 PM
You neither Joe White, nor a judge.
“Judge Gladys Kessler of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Tuesday that the individual mandate provision of the ACA, which requires everyone to have insurance by 2014 or else pay a penalty, is in line with the U.S. Constitution.
Kessler is the third Bill Clinton-appointed judge to side with the Obama administration on the legality of the healthcare reform law. Two other judges — both appointed by Republican presidents — have declared parts of the law unconstitutional, including Florida Judge Roger Vinson, who was recently asked by the administration to clarify his ruling. A total of 13 courts have dismissed the case all together.”

The Dems are proving they are not leaders. Leaders do not run and hide so they do not have to vote. Leaders do not create laws that allow them to continue to be voted back to office. The dems are scared chickens

LOL…LOL…Don’t you just love all those hard core “black and white thinkers” and their “logic”. If it isn’t the topic of “abortion”; it’s all about the “gays”. LOL…The world is changing and will continue to change, folks… whether you want it to or not. Live your life the way you want and let others do the same. It is time to give up your “tyrannical beliefs” that you can force your “moral values” on others. What a “shock” to GOP’ers and conservatives everywhere?! LOL…LOL

I have a hard problem understanding why people think what he did was wrong. He is stating that the US government should not appeal a decision. Isn’t that what is supposed to happen? When a decision is made by a lower court, isn’t the losing side supposed to decide whether or not to appeal?

“Marriage” is a religious-rooted idealogy that has no part in America, per the Constitution’s assertion that the government will not recognize religious bodies. Thus, this whole thread is a moot point.

“The courts have already ruled the Law unconstitutional. What Obama did was to not appeal it any longer and continue to defend it since he thinks it is a waste of time,” – Zazu
Good, now he can cease defending YesWeCanCare™ since that was ruled unconstitutional too.

I’m jealous of the 2012 GOP presidential candidate. He/she will have lots of fun. Can’t wait ;)

When you can’t legislate it, adjudicate it.
- unknown liberal Confucius

How do you tell a Wisconsin teacher from a Greek? You can’t…
“ATHENS, Greece — They blockade highway toll booths to give drivers free passage. They cover subway ticket machines with plastic bags so commuters can’t pay. Even doctors are joining in, preventing patients from paying fees at state hospitals.
“Some call it civil disobedience. Others a freeloading spirit. Either way, Greece’s ‘I Won’t Pay’ movement has sparked heated debate in a nation reeling from a debt crisis that’s forced the government to take drastic austerity measures — including higher taxes, wage and pension cuts, and price spikes in public services.”
Gimme gimme gimme. Mine mine mine. When they start gorging at the public trough they become morbidly obese, and they can’t help themselves.

GDAD – if that is true then why does the government require a marriage license???

MJ– That’s my point. The government shouldn’t require one, period. There should be no recognition in law of marriage.

Obama had 2 years to come to the same conclusion, but for obvious political reasons did not. In fact, he had a Democrat majority Congress that would have been much more likely to support repeal of DOMA. Although, he knew that even the Democrat Congress wouldn’t repeal it. Knowing how little support there is for this even in his own party, he was smart to wait until Republicans assumed office. At the same time, do not insult our intelligence and act like this was a spontaneous act arrived at purely out of circumstance, as the people know better. In fact, most of the American people will see this for what it is — a distraction from our number 1 priority — the economy and the taming of our out-of-control government.

This is almost as bad as G W Bush saying he would only act on the portions of bills his executive branch found “Constitutional”.
The President does NOT have the power to find a bill Constitutional: the Supreme Court does.

To all those saying “This should be a non-issue” would you have said that about equal rights for blacks? Was that a non-issue or a moot point?
You’re also completely failing to recognize that marriage is a social bond, the most important one in our society, not necessarily a religious one. As an atheist, I intend to get married still.
And who cares if there are more important issues facing the US? Should the president deal ONLY with the MOST important issue? Of course not, he must divide his time between all issues, one of which is the equal treatment of gays and lesbians.
Denying gays and lesbians equal rights to marriage is a completely immoral and indefensible position to hold, which is supported by ignorant people, likely due to their religious beliefs.

Note to Yuppers:
“It still amazes me that so many can’t STAND the fact that we have a Constitutional scholar…in the White House…”
You are just the type of halfway informed voter the progressives like to lead around by the nose.
Despite the liberal lamestream media’s misleading (and propagandist) comments to the contrary, Obama was never a Constitutional “scholar.” He was not even a Constitutional Law professor. He was just a Constitutional Law lecturer, which any halfway intelligent person with a copy of the document in hand can do. I know. I studied Constitutional Law and have a JD.
And it’s not that I can’t stand a so-called Constitutional “scholar” being in the White House. It’s that I don’t like a poseur president who’s so arrogant he thinks thinks he can ignore the parts of the Constitution he doesn’t like or which don’t serve his political purposes. He swore an oath to uphold ALL of the Constitution and be the president of ALL Americans. So far, he has failed miserably at both.
Besides, it’s our COURT SYSTEM, as specified in the CONSTITUTION, by the way, which decides what is constitutional or not — not any so-called scholar, much less only a lecturer.

“RME KRNL”…so let me get this straight. Then for the world to be made “whole” we should instead adhere to “your subjective interpretation” of what is constitutional or not? And at the same time only “adhere” to your own personal “moral views and iterpretaions”. Is that what I am hearing you say? Well here is what I say to that…LOL…LOL…LOL

And again, we have another case of reading comprehension disorder.
The DoJ will enforce the law until it is repealed or stricken down.
The DoJ will not, nor is it obligated to, defend the constitutionality of the law in court.
And for the record, the difference between a Professor of Law and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago is whether they’re on a tenure track. Their jobs are identical.

From Pew Research, a little trip down PATCO union memory lane:
“[T]he public solidly supported Reagan’s action. Fully 59% of Americans approved of the way he was handling the issue, according to a Gallup poll conducted a few days after he fired the controllers. A Harris survey at about the same time showed that by 51% to 40%, more said they were in sympathy with the Reagan administration than with the air traffic controllers.”

there is a gap of between $1 Trillion and $3 Trillion between what unionized state and localmpublic employees have been promised ij pension and retirement benefits and the money that will be available for thoe purposes. Where do they think that money will come from?
The answer is, it won’t. And that gives me great joy.

Constitutional scholar Bill Clinton (J.D., Yale), who signed the DOMA into law, evidently believed it was constitutional. So did Obama while defending it over the past two years.
What caused him to change his mind? Did he receive a new legal memo? Did an angel visit him in a dream? Is he perhaps simply a cynical politician?
Trivia question: Who is the only Harvard Law Review president in history never to have Been published in a legal journal?

“What caused him to change his mind?”
——
There’s no indication that he changed his mind. The appropriate question is what happened that forced him to make a clear stand.
As the blog post points out, the Obama admin has always maintained that DOMA “was a unnecessary imposition on what had been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage.”
Two lawsuits filed in November of 2010 pushed the administration to reach its decision.
The NYT wrote about this a few weeks ago @ “Suits on Same-Sex Marriage May Force Administration to Take a Stand”:
“Unlike previous challenges, the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York — one of the only circuits with no modern precedent saying how to evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people. That means that the administration, for the first time, may be required to take a clear stand. ”
When push came to shove they could no longer have it both ways so they had to make their position clear.
Tapper addresses this briefly in the 7th paragraph above. The NYT article is worth a read for those who are confused.

It’s very clear that the president has changed his mind. His administration defended DOMA in the case of Gill v. OPM, summarized as follows:
“Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management 699 F.Supp.2d 374 (D.Mass., 2010) is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs in the suit challenge the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the terms ‘marriage’ as ‘a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and ‘spouse’ as ‘a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’
“The trial began on May 6, 2010, and was heard by District Judge Joseph Louis Tauro. On July 8, Tauro ruled section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in a summary judgment. He later stayed the implementation of his decision pending appeal and the Department of Justice entered an appeal on October 12, 2010.”
Note carefully: Obama not only defended the Act, he took an appeal from an adverse judgment at the trial court level.

Fascist Hyena, I encourage you to read “Suits on Same-Sex Marriage May Force Administration to Take a Stand” at the New York Times. I acknowledge there can be different takeaways but the NYT suggestion makes more sense than yours.
NYT: “Unlike previous challenges, the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York — one of the only circuits with no modern precedent saying how to evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people. That means that the administration, for the first time, may be required to take a clear stand. “

This is so foolish. Homosexual men have the same right to marry women as heterosexual men have. Homosexual women have the same right to marry men as heterosexual women have.
So what’s their problem?

I’m aware of what the NY Times says, and am also aware that it makes no sense at all. If the president can direct his justice department to argue the law’s constitutionality in the district court, and can take an appeal from a judgment of unconstitutionality by that court, he can just as appropriately argue its constitutionality in any of the circuit courts or the Supreme Court. If he felt a duty to argue for the law at the district court level, nothing said by any court short of the Supreme Court need affect his decision in any way.
Holder’s justice department has issued any number of absolutely screwball statements about the law in the past two years, and this is another one.

“Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something.”
The judge cited no judicial precedent for that assertion, because there is none. But if it were true, then the congress could compel everyone to buy a general motors automobile, on the ground that by choosing not to do so they were acting in a way that affected interstate commerce. And they could compel them to eat broccoli on the same grounds, or not to sleep in in the morning because their decision not to work affected interstate commerce.
Saying that “inaction” is “action” is not mere semantics. It is Alice in Wonderland.

We need to have a print out of the Constition of the United Stats of America in 2011. There have been so many line strikes and amendments, we have NOTHING in print to help us understand our expectations. Old Business doesn’t work. The Constition was written by Protestant Christians, and today, that is the minority in the USA.

The President of the United States and the Attorney General have a duty to follow and uphold the laws of this land. They have no right to force their dictatorial views on the rest of us. The President’s focus should be on the economic and foreign policy crises which plague the world. The great Presidents (Washington, Lincoln and FDR) would not have catered to selfish groups who claim rights but never assume responsibility. It should be remembered that Sparta fell because it was obsessed with carnal materialistic appetites. George Santayana observed that those who not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Raven wrote:
“You neither Joe White, nor a judge.”
Very true. But I can logically defend what I write.
I took apart your assertion that Obamacare is “perfectly constitutional, on several grounds (regulation of interstate commerce, taxation authority, promotion of the general welfare”
Instead of defending what you said, you merely pretend that it doesnt exist.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 23, 2011 10:11:02 PM
Ilya’s argument is cliched, partisan, superficial and rather sloppy as it is easy to pay for all of those things out of pocket or opt out of the market all together. Not everyone will need as a matter of life or death broccoli or a car at some point in their life.

Alyson wrote:
” All you did was repeat a lame version of the opinion that will lose when it goes to the Supreme Court. ”
It’s not just ‘my opinion’ that taxes have to be paid to a government entity and not to a private company.
It’s a fact.
Therefore, arguing that Obamacare’s individual mandate is constitutional because ‘Congress has taxation authority’ is nonsense.
Insurance companies aren’t authorized by the Constitution to be the tax collector for the US govt.
When you buy insurance, the money goes to the insurance company, not the government.
Do you get it? They aren’t the same. (At least not yet. We’ve been hearing about separation of church and state, but apparently what we need when Democrats are in office is separation of business and state. Democrats used to be opposed to corporate welfare. What happened?)
————
It’s not just ‘my opinion’ that the interstate commerce clause deals with commerce.
It’s a fact.
‘Not buying’ something isn’t ‘commerce’. Do you get it yet?
———-
It isn’t just ‘my opinion’ that the General Welfare clause can’t be interpreted as giving Congress unlimited authority to compel Americans to engage in commerce with private companies.
It’s a fact.
The Founders did not envision an all powerful central government. Quite the opposite.
Let’s say that studies proved that those who skipped breakfast were unhealthier than the population at large and that they end up costing the nation more $$ due to health care consequences of their non-action.
Do you think the Constitution allows Congress to compel every American to purchase breakfast?
Lets say that studies show that Americans who dont buy a brand new car every two years end up costing the nation precious jobs thru their nonaction.
Do you think the Constitution allows Congress to compel every American to buy a new car?
Hello?

Alyson wrote:
“The difference between health care versus all the products you guys use to try to make your point is that you can buy most of the products you mention out of pocket”
People buy health care services out of pocket all the time. What are you talking about?
There are a myriad of health care services and products that can be and are purchased out of pocket.
But Obamacare lumps ALL health care service into one category — regardless of cost.

RME KMRL, you need to re-read the article.
The court asked the administration to clarify what is the constitutional defense to exclude gays from marriage. The judges who are obviously experts in the constitution and laws, couldn’t find one so asked for clarification. The administration couldn’t find a defense because there isn’t any.
It is really that simple, the DOMA is unconstitutional.
As the President has stated, he will continue to enforce the law, but he can’t have the justice department defend in court a law that goes against the Constitution. By the way, other presidents have done the same thing, enforced but not defended in court a law that was unconstitutional.

Lydia wrote:
“what is the constitutional defense to exclude gays from marriage”
Homosexuals are not denied the legal right to marry.
Any homosexual person may marry a member of the opposite sex. And many have.
But there are legal restrictions regarding who any person may marry, and they apply to heterosexuals as well. So homosexuals arent being ‘discriminated against’.
A homosexual cannot legally marry his sibling.
And neither can a heterosexual.
A homosexual cannot legally marry his parent.
And neither can a heterosexual.
A homosexual cannot legally marry his child.
And neither can a heterosexual.
A homosexual cannot legally marry more than one person at a time.
And neither can a heterosexual.
A homosexual cannot legally marry someone of the same gender.
And neither can a heterosexual.
The rules are the same for everyone. No discrimination.

what is wrong with it. i say to each there own an to be honest its no ones business who u want to marry.

“If DOMA prevents same-sex marriages it is denying individual’s their right to marry the person that they love.” – Lydia
DOMA does not prevent Marriages.
It does not deny anyone from their individual right to Marry the one they love.
What you are doing is confusing someone’s right to Marry with another’s right to Garry.
Marriage and Garriage are two different things

“Two consenting, non-related, legal-age adults should be able to be married.” – Lydia
Agreed, provided one is a Man and one is a Woman.
Lydia, we have words for everything.
You wouldn’t be calling it Gay Marriage if it wasn’t different in some way.
It is different and it is called Garriage.
Maybe you have an agenda?

Lydia wrote
“If DOMA prevents same-sex marriages it is denying individual’s their right to marry the person that they love.”
What if they love someone they are related to? On what basis do you deny them the ‘right’ to marry?
What if they love MORE THAN one person?
On what basis do you deny them?
You ‘discriminate’ too. You simply won’t admit it.

Personnally to say that a person should be allowed to marry who they want and love is to me one thing but isnt it true that a large amount of gay people once had some type of sexually confusion within the home or had been molested in some way? At least that is what the statics show. Honestly if you cant make babies together, its not right to marry. Marriage represent family and to marry one man to another does not seem mentally correct. You say you believe in God, then what happen to Adam and Eve? It wasnt Adam and Steve or we would not be here. If we are trying to destroy our human race then you allow Gay marraige. If you are trying to give your kids a better future You end this mental problem fast! Its not normal to marry same sex and to introduce this to kids is sick. So I guess like the statement was made earlier about marriage to a relative would be ok, if you are sick. Everyone defending these sex laws are not fit to have kids or raise kids! They are the ones who molest kids and spread diseases! Be honest with yourself for a change. How did you decide you were gay? was you touched in some way or was it your partner? I bet it wasnt right in the begining. so what make you think its right now!

Incredibly, most states in the United States- the country in which prides itself on being a symbol of freedom- still do not allow lesbian and gay couples to share in the responsibilities and commitment of marriage. In those few states and District of Columbia that do allow the freedom to marry, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act excludes same-sex couples from the more than 1,000 federal protections of marriage including all IRS and Social Security spousal protections.
Tell me, though, what does this Defense of Marriage Act truly defend? Is it really a ground principle or is merely a common philosophy? Wow, one might say, look at this opinionated college student using all this savvy language. In actuality, however, a ground principle is based on fact- a truth. To say only a man and woman can reproduce is a ground principle. That idea is based upon biological fact. But to define marriage as a “legal union between one man and one woman” as the DOMA does is as reasonable as defining what religion is. However, any American citizen knows that the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Do you see the irony in that? I know I certainly do.
Let’s go back to when we were children. If you were a little girl, you probably imagined getting married and living happily ever after at very young age- I know I did. For boys, this time usually doesn’t come until later, but eventually by their teens, most guys know that they, too, want to have this kind of bond with someone one day. Of course, growing up as American children, we have culturally defined prototypes of what marriage is, but we don’t focus on who we marry. Rather, we focus on why we marry- to be loved, to be happy, to have someone in our lives that means everything to us forever.
Looking back on those initial feelings about marriage, I have to say my feelings haven’t changed. I still want to get married one day. I still want to have that one person I can fall back on, no matter what, because they’re the person I decided to spend the rest of my life with. And sitting next to my boyfriend, that is so easy to imagine. Honestly, that is so easy to have. Heck, if I wanted to grab a witness and a couple proofs of identification, I could go to City Hall today and have a nationally recognized marriage license by tomorrow. But what about some of my closest friends who have been with their partners for much longer than my boyfriend and I- whose relationships are much more serious, much stronger, much more mature? What about them? Are they meant to live together “freely” in love, or in some kind of “union” for the rest of their lives? Okay, well I guess that’s acceptable- we can get away with saying that’s “fair”. In fact, that would almost be great… except life happens.
Partners in any relationship don’t always make the same level of income. And as a society, we’ve come to accept that. As a result, when life happens and someone gets sick, injured, or even worse, dies, we have to hope it doesn’t happen to the main provider or that we’re legally married. Surely, you have heard the line “…until death do us part”. I don’t mean to be cynical, but that’s how we’re all going. That’s going to be the end of all of our relationships. As hard as that kind of loss might be, imagine having to deal with the loss of your home as well because you can no longer pay for it. Imagine losing all of the things that make up life as you know it. If you’re the main provider for your family or incomes within your household are equal, imagine your loved ones going through that.
The idea hurts us. No one enjoys loss or pain, and as a result, we do everything we can to minimize those things. We support these preventions because we recognize that all human beings deserve happiness, yet as a culture of human beings- humans from a country that teaches from day one that we are all created equal- we are unable to to see the hypocrisy in our definition of marriage which is based on a sort of selective equality. Couples who have made a personal commitment to each other for better or for worse and to care for one another in sickness and in health deserve the cultural respect, social support, and legal protections that come with marriage not only because it’s just, but because empathy is what makes us human. Empathy is what enables us to look past our differences, disagreements, and beliefs and see ourselves among us.