Down With Doma

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted under President Clinton in 1996. This act allowed for states to not recognize same-sex couples married in other states. Until today, it has also denied these couples of federal marriage benefits. What it boiled down to was allowing states to decide whether or not they would honor same-sex marriages but uphold the constitutional rights every married couple in the nation should have access to.

There are three main points I would like to make in support of the fall of DoMA and also bring up some point against one man’s arguments for DoMA. On the basis of principal and policy, marriage should not be defined by religion, all married couples should have access to the same benefits, and same-sex marriage does nothing more to “discredit” marriage as do things like adultery, prenuptial agreements, and divorce.

Separation of Church and State: Pretty straight forward and explicit, I think. The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman was heavily influence by religion. But the truth of the matter is, America is not a country of one religion and even though many religions can be interpreted as being anti-gay, to have laws based on the ideals of a specific group of people that will influence the lives and liberties of others is not only unconstitutional, but immoral, especially in the sense of democracy.

Widows left with nothing: When a spouse in an opposite-sex couple dies, their partner rightfully inherits their benefits. Heck when they are living, they are able to share benefits. It wasn’t the same for same sex marriage. How would you feel if the person you loved would be left with nothing if you were to die while the partners of others remained secure? I’m just saying. Adopted children get the benefits of their adopted parents. Should they not be able to because they share no biological ties to the person taking care of them? Yet, the children of same-sex couples cannot be covered by the benefits they should be entitled to. Another fallacy in this law is that post-operational transgender individuals can be wed to a partner of a now opposite sex. That is Steve can make his outty and inny and now marry Josh, but Steve’s still technically biologically a guy. Talk about confusiinnggg; yet it’s allowed. Pish posh.

Alas, the very name of the act in itself is a poor argument for its existence. Defense of Marriage… what exactly is it being attacked by? Droves of same-sex couples who love one another and are in long-term, monogamous relationships? Ah yes, but the people getting married and divorced within weeks, (*cough, Kim Kardashian), bare no persecution for ruining the sanctity of marriage. I mean, should adulterers be subject to hanging upon sentencing? Prenuptial agreements were explained to me as being like life insurance; you don’t want to get hurt, or sick, or die but you want the protection in the case that it does happen. If marriage is this holy, sacred, cure-all occurrence that will help separate the heathens from the enlightened, WHY on Earth would you think it would be flawed to failure? The thing about life, car, renters insurance is that shit happens. You’re going to die; that was established the minute your mom spat you out her vag. But, did you walk into that alter thinking, “fuck, this bitch is going to leave me and take more than 75% of my life’s earnings” and not stop to think that this very mentality is attacking the sanctity of marriage? With more people getting married and being able to express their forms of love and appreciation, I believe the nation will gain a new perspective on love and not the story line crap we’ve been fed by Hollywood.

I can’t remember the guy’s name, mainly because I didn’t have my glasses on, but he was on ABC News talking about how the fall of DoMA may seem all fine and dandy now, but when businesses begin to suffer and the country is thrown into more financial turmoil, all supporters of same-sex marriage will rethink their ideals. All I have to say about that is, I’m pretty sure the biggest losers were slave owners, but they’ve survived right? If a baker chooses not to sell cakes for same-sex marriages, I’m sure their are two more who will be willing. He argued that these laws are being pushed on people. We’ll duh, DoMA was pushed on people.Every law and regulation is pushed on people. Just laws leave you the wiggle room to make choices. The difference is, you can CHOSE who you provide service to in your OWN PRIVATE company, but people cannot CHOSE their sexual orientation.

This is America. Let’s keep the options, okay.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s