What’s the deal with DOMA?
massachusetts filed a lawsuit wednesday against the federal government that calls into question the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act (DOMA).
i’ve tackled this subject before as i believe the federal government should leave itself out of the marriage thing altogether. in my version of an ideal world, there would be two different rules governing marriage - the legal side of things which would allow for equal treatment of all people (what we would now consider civil unions), and the religious side of things which would allow for what we now term “marriage.” however, this is not the way things are, nor do i think we’re heading in that direction so what should be done given the way things are now?
my problem with DOMA isn’t so much that it restricts who can marry who (although that is a huge - but separate - problem). it’s that it over-rides the decisions and laws made by states on the subject of marriage. it’s frustrating to look at the situation and think a state could enact a law that recognizes gay marriage (as massachusetts has done), only to have it over-ridden at the federal level. but what’s the solution?
i was talking to my parents about this issue, and that’s exactly the point they brought up. i didn’t have an answer because the reverse of the above situation is also true - if a state enacts a law that renders gay marriage illegal, it shouldn’t be able to be undone at the federal level otherwise what’s the point of independently-run states? for this reason i don’t believe there should be a “reverse” DOMA but i also recognize my parents’ point: what happens when a gay couple - married in one state - move to another state that doesn’t allow gay marriage? what is the rule of law then?
marriage has not been something that was legislated on a federal level in the past but - as my parents also pointed out - that’s because until recently nothing ever challenged the “traditional” definition of what marriage was. as this changes, do we need an over-arching law that accounts for cultural shifts? how can such a law be reconciled with the idea of states’ rights?
July 09 2009 06:51 am | marriage and parents and politics and religion and san francisco and the city
July 9th, 2009 at 7:49 am
I’m mostly in agreement with your opinions on this. As far as I’m concerned, make it legally identical– make *all* gov’t interactions “civil unions” (even heterosexual ones)– in other words, get rid of marriage licenses entirely and make them “recognized civil union certificates” or some other thing. Then let religious/gay groups fight over who’s label of “marriage” is more legitimate. If the Southern Baptist Church down the street doesn’t want to marry gays, fine. But they *can* go to the Methodist church across the way and get married if they want to, and the gov’t will give them the same “civil union certificate” they gave to the nice heterosexual Baptist couple last week. Meanwhile, the Baptists and the Methodists can hold theological debates on who is right and who is wrong, all the while not recognizing the validity of each other’s “marriage”.
Boom, problem solved.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am
i completely agree - churches/religions/denominations will be arguing and arguing about this one anyway, so we might as well let them just take the burden off the government. and i guess if the government was only responsible for civil unions, that would negate the states rights/federal jurisdiction problem.
buuuut … since that’s unlikely (at least right now …) i still wonder what the state/federal answer is. are we simply destined to have something like DOMA?