Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama calls this act, signed by Bill Clinton 16 years ago, unconstitutional and lawyers from the Justice Department will be arguing against it. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group--which is, despite its name, a Republican led organization--was tapped to defend DOMA and the Republican led House voted funds to cover their case.
what eye thynk: I am amazed that it took 16 years for DOMA to be argued in the Supreme Court. It would seem to be so patently discriminatory that I can't believe it was ever signed into law in the first place.
And I wish, (how weak that word seems right now), that our country's conservative religious community would butt out of this. DOMA is not a religious issue. Can you imagine the outrage if Congress passed a law saying all religions must perform same sex marriages? The United States foundation in separation of church and state would be argued in every pulpit. How is the reverse any less valid?
Gay and lesbian couples who want to marry are not trying to take away anyone's God, they are not trying to take away anyone's right to view God as they choose. If a church believes that same sex marriage is wrong and wants to ban it, the separation of church and state should give that church the right to do so.
Inversely, no church should be permitted to force other institutions to conform to its canons. If federal government does not have the right to tell a church how to practice its religion, why should any church have the right to tell the federal government how to write laws? Why should any church have the right to tell a same sex couple that they cannot legally be married by a Justice of the Peace, by a lay minister or by a church that is accepting.
The right to marry is a legal issue dealing with the rights of two individuals who are asking nothing more than equal protection under our law--the right to tax advantages we provide to heterosexual couples, the right to add a spouse to an insurance policy, the right to visit a hospitalized partner, the right to make decisions for a partner as next of kin, the right to inherit as next of kin, the right of guardianship of children. The right to stand up and say "This is the person I love". These are simple, every day rights that heterosexual couples expect and accept every day, without thinking about them.
It is time our country recognizes that, just as one person may prefer pink over green, city over country or Art Deco over Jacobean, some people prefer same over different--and our constitution gives them that right.
This a country, like it or not, governed (mostly) by a handful of very rich old white males.
ReplyDeleteThat same 'make-up" of captains were guiding this ship of state while slavery was deemed to be legal.
What is so hard to believe about this bigoted white, and so very very wealthy, force consisting of such a very small percentage of Americans who are the de facto rule makers?
Historically, these kings of industry have dominated government by pouring obscene amounts of money into the hands of people like Karl Rove. Because of this, I've become very cynical since "W" took office.
It is more evident now, than ever before, that big money runs BOTH the house and the senate ~ and maybe even the [not so supreme] Supreme Court.