If you're looking for a sound legal argument as to why DOMA should be considered unconstitutional, Judge Joseph L. Tauro said it well:
By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning.Historically, states have determined who can marry, not the federal government, which means that if a state decides that a same sex couple should marry, the federal government is currently not providing that couple equal protection under the law. So what does the Respect for Marriage Act actually do? According to Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry:
The Respect for Marriage Act repeals "DOMA" in its entirety. It doesn't tell states what marriages they must celebrate or how to treat marriages, but provides that the federal responsibilities and protections accorded married couples will remain stable and predictable no matter where a couple lives, works, or travels, and no matter whether that couple is gay or non- gay. The Respect for Marriage Act doesn't require any person, religious organization, locality, or state to celebrate or license any marriage, gay or non-gay. The First Amendment protects the right of churches and religious bodies to determine the qualifications for religious marriage, and the Respect for Marriage Act cannot and will not upset that longstanding protection.The Respect for Marriage Act cannot force Michigan to give me a marriage license. However, if I someday manage to move to a state that will, I hope to see federal recognition of that. Repeal of DOMA also makes it possible for the federal government to put into effect other legislation providing protections and equal rights to same-sex couples.
No comments:
Post a Comment