In 1996, the 104th Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, a misnamed legislative boondoggle which enshrined discrimination into federal law. Now, Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY), along with 76 House sponsors, will introduce legislation to overturn that law. Whether it passes in the 111th Congress or in a future Congress is uncertain. What is certain is that this effort -- to strike state-sanctioned discrimination from the federal code -- is the right thing to do.
Many of us, no matter our sexual orientation, believe that marriage should be a legal commitment between two adults. The notion that marriage is threatened by legally sanctioned relationships because of sexual orientation is patently absurd. Three important points need to be made. First, marriages (and weddings) are not purely religious events and anyone who thinks they are has never been to Las Vegas. Second, marriage confers many legal rights (health benefits, taxes, property rights, parental rights, inheritance, etc.) which are denied to those who are not permitted to marry. Third, and finally, it is inherently discriminatory that couples who marry in Iowa are treated as if they are not married when visiting the state of Utah, or some other state where such discrimination is legal.
This is the United States of America.
Repeal of DOMA is a crucial first step to eliminating discrimination and ensuring marriage equality. It has the full support of Americans for Democratic Action, the nation's historic advocacy group opposing discrimination and supporting full economic and social justice. And it's time other allied organizations, anyone who calls themselves a progressive -- straight or gay -- to come out of the closet and support marriage equality.
In 1963, it was one of the founders of ADA, Walter Reuther, who led the UAW into the civil rights movement. He actually spoke at the historic march where Dr. King gave the "I have a dream speech." While his words did not echo through history in the same way, his actions were significant in helping to change America. It showed the world the Civil Rights Movement was indeed a movement with a broad coalition of supporters sharing one common goal. It was necessary to accomplish real and lasting change. Repeal of DOMA fits into that same historic narrative; the LGBT community shouldn't have to fight this battle alone.
WHEN WE REVOLT.
I.R.S. tax revolt, business boycotts, and possibly confronting those churches who harm us DIRECTLY. If ignorant religious bullies can steal my family's earned pension (theft), bring trauma into our lives and even disabilities (it sure feels like violence), I think we need to respond in kind. I am certain that more violence will be around the corner, because with things like PROP 8 and now REF-71 and the fight in Maine - many of us have HAD ENOUGH!
In 1967, the Warren Court ruled in Loving that marriage is a basic civil right. In 1972, that same Warren Court ruled in Baker that it was not. What? How can that be? The legal definition of "civil rights" is "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."
In 1972, the Minnesota Supreme court essential ruled that is was not unconstitutional to limit marriage to one woman and one man and went on to say: The Minnesota Supreme Court goes on to say: “This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which the petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.” The court goes on to conclude “We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
...continued
That being said, when you try to cite for precedential value of a case wuch as Baker v. MN, you have to remember that dismissals for lack of substantial federal questions don't carry the exact same weight as a full opinion of the SCOTUS, after full briefing and oral arguments. Part of that is because such dismissals (being one sentence long) do not contain any reasoning or an exact holding to provide guidance to lower courts or to future sessions of the SCOTUS in considering future cases. It can only be binding as to the precise question presented. Trust me, there is no way the court would ever conclude that its summary dismissal in Baker overruled long-standing precedent, going back to the late 1800s culminating in Loving v. VA just 5 years earlier, that marriage is a fundamental civil right. That's just too broad of a claim that one can't extrapolate from a one-sentence dismissal order.
The time to guarantee marriage equality and end this injustice is now.
This story has been floating around for a few days now, and so far HuffPo is the only place I can find it being covered. not CNN, not MSNBC, not even Rachel Maddow has mentioned it that I've seen. I would think that, with something this vitally important to the fabric of society (or so the Right Wing nut jobs tell us), that Pat Robertson and RIck Warren would be raging on all the networks against this,
Could this all just be a false alarm over nothing?