On the morning of June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law which prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, in a narrow 5 to 4 vote. In the opinion for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
In a sister decision, regarding Hollingsworth vs. Perry, the court ruled that the traditional marriage activists who originally put Proposition 8 on California's ballot had no legal standing to appeal the ruling which struck down the state's ban on same sex-marriage. The ruling essentially legalized same sex marriage in California, making it the 13th state to recognize the institution.
While these rulings are being hailed as milestones for equal rights, they do leave some questions unanswered. According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, a marriage which is legally performed in one state is recognized as valid in all 50 states, yet according to the DOMA ruling, the federal government must recognize same-sex marriage in all states where such marriages can legally obtained. So, if a same-sex couple marries in one state, then moves to a non-same-sex marriage state, does the federal government still recognize the marriage?
Instead of trying to answer questions such as that, Tea Party poster girl, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) offered this public statement: "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted."
Representative Bachmann, and others like her, are still trying to use God as an excuse to deny equal rights to same-sex couples. Being a Christian myself, I find such use of God's word to be highly offensive.
-
A BRIEF DETOUR VIA MY SOAP BOX
2000 years ago, when Christ walked with the apostles, old people were taken care of by their adult children or they weren't taken care of. Thus, marriage that couldn't produce children, same-sex marriage, was considered to be taboo for practical reasons by Judeo/Christian thinkers. Such a taboo may have been a product of the best thinking of the time, but it's just wrong by any modern standard.Faith should never be used to justify bigotry. In my mind, having true faith means accepting people's differences & trusting that God knew what He was doing when He made people the way He made them. HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING!
SOAP BOX DETOUR ENDS
-
Civil rights still have a long row to ho in this country. However, these two rulings have put us ever so much closer to realizing true equality across the board.
-
The courthouse picture above was created by a government unit of the United States and is in the public domain under U.S. law.
-
Follow my blog with Bloglovin
Not sure if you knew this, but I read an article that said DOMA was two parts - the constitutional definition of marriage being a man and a woman, and also eliminating the recognition of gay marriages between individual states. In essence, you can get married in Vancouver and then drive 5 miles across the Columbia and be unmarried. Only the first provision of DOMA was struck down; the second still stands. It's getting there, but it's gonna be a long road to nationwide recognition of all marriages.
ReplyDeleteI knew States could decide not to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. I'm just wondering if the federal government will recognize a legally performed marriage if a couple moves from Washington to Montana.
DeleteThis article was good and in plain English, too. :)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/its-complicated-still-lots-to-sort-out-after-supreme-court-wins-for-backers-of-gay-marriage/2013/06/27/e412ffce-def9-11e2-ad2e-fcd1bf42174d_story.html
This is what I was afraid of. Thanks Sarah.
Delete"A: Even with Wednesday’s ruling, where legally married gay couples live still may affect the federal benefits they can obtain, at least for now. Social Security survivor benefits, for example, depend on where a couple is living when a spouse dies. If that happens in a state that bans or does not recognize the union, it’s not for sure that the surviving spouse will be entitled to the payments. Immigration law, meanwhile, only looks at where people were married, not where they live. It’s complicated."