Forbes Magazine says Gay Marriage for Straight Legislatures

This article from Forbes.com is probably one of the best defenses for marriage equality that I have seen in such short and succint form. If anyone had a question on whether or not the 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The author, Lisa Duggan, describes her first marriage from start to finish.

When I got hitched for the first time, in Staten Island’s tiny city hall, I was a naïve twenty-two year old, wearing a dress off Nordstrom’s rack. New York State didn’t ask, so we never had to tell anyone why we wanted to marry, only that we did.  Two signatures and two vials of blood was all that was necessary to be granted the state’s legal blessing.
New York State was there as well, three years later, when we decided to get unmarried—and this time they were asking questions. Cruel and inhuman treatment? Abandonment for a period of one or more years? Adultery? Who did what to whom, and when: it was all material to our legal grounds for divorce.

She then goes on to describe how married couples can completely lose any and all protections once they cross state lines, and how this law was written and passed specifically to discriminate against the LGBT population. It makes me sick to look back and see how complacent our legislators (and most of their constituents) were (and are) when it comes to writing discrimination into our laws, and potentially into our Constitution.

It means that our government will not pay Social Security benefits to the same-sex spouse of any enlisted person, grunt or officer, even if their partner of fifteen years dies while defending this country.
Is it me, or does all this scream civil rights violations? Isn’t it the height of hypocrisy for State and federal legislators to collect taxes from their gay constituents with one hand, while denying their rights with the other?

Especially when you consider that this legal landscape is neither an oversight, nor a murky interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which manages potential conflicts between various states’ rules.  In fact, the US Congress had to go out of its way to create this “marriage apartheid.”

She then goes on to attack DOMA and the potential Federal Marriage Amendment directly.

The 1996 law that unfairly singles out some American citizens based solely on sexual orientation is called The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  The law was inspired when several gay couples from Hawaii sued for the right to legally marry. (DOMA was signed into law by that hero of marital fidelity, Bill Clinton.)

DOMA doesn’t prohibit individual states from allowing gay marriages, but it denies federal recognition of these marriages and grants each state the right to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages issued by other states.  Keeping gay families unequal and separate.  As legal scholar Andrew Koppelman observes in his book, The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, DOMA:

“Create(s) a set of second-class marriages, valid under state law but void for all federal purposes. The exclusion of a class of valid state marriages from all federal recognition is ‘unprecedented in our jurisprudence.”

And the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment will forever seal this separate status by defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. We’ve been here before, although some refuse to see the parallels: it wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional every miscegenation law in the country.

Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? Please read the article. The rest is really good. Let me know what you think.

UPDATE: Push Back

I posted last week about Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a pastor and state senator for New York from the Bronx. He is about as vocal an opposition leader to marriage equality in a position of power, considering he can actually cast a vote for or against it in the legislature.

He has sad many hateful things about LGBTs, and opposes marriage equality SOLELY on his religious beliefs. He also claims to be the church, and the state.

Besides all these things, he is a family man. He is a father, and also a grandfather. One of his grandchildren, Erica Diaz, is a partnered lesbian with two children. On May 15, 2011, she held a opposing rally in support of marriage equality, while her grandfather and several others spoke against gay people. (Many continued to spread falsehoods of and anti-gay stereotypes) Before her grandfather finished his speech, Erica wanted to stand beside him. To show him that his family was watching.

After she returned to her side of the plaza, after her girlfriend greeted her with a jubilant kiss and her friends raised her arms in victory, like a triumphant boxer who had just left the ring, Ms. Diaz said she believed her grandfather, particularly at this moment, needed to be reminded that his family was watching.
“It was important,” she said of her decision to go onstage. “I wanted him to know that I’m here, and that as long as I am alive, I’m going to stand up for what is right.”
How did she expect all this to go over at the next family dinner?
“We don’t really mix politics at the dinner table,” Ms. Diaz said, allowing herself a smile. “Family is family.” (NYTIMES)

She later responded to her grandfather, and his rally through an interview with the NY Post.

When I was younger, marriage equality was not an issue for me. But now, as my grandfather ceaselessly and callously comments on the issue, each and every word stings, since I live with my girlfriend of 2½ years, Naomi Torres, and our two sons, Jared and Jeremiah Munoz. This fight is personal.

My family deserves the same benefits as others. Naomi -- whom I would like to marry -- should be able to do things that straight married people take for granted, like make a decision for me if I'm sick.

And my grandfather has witnessed our love. At Christmas he lovingly played with our children.

But as he continued to ratchet up his rhetoric, something in me snapped. I decided to show up at his rally last month on the steps of the Bronx County Courthouse so that he could face a person he loved, a person who was gay, as he spoke against us.

That day I waded through the religious crowd and saw children as young as mine say hateful things. "You're not God's child. One man, one woman. You're not living by God." I was so nervous that morning that I threw up. I spoke against him across the street, directly within his view. But then I approached a police officer who escorted me to the podium where he spoke. My grandfather introduced me to the crowd and kissed me on the forehead. "This is my granddaughter," he said. "She chose her way of life, but I chose God's way, but I love her." Grandpa even called me after the rally, to say that he was proud of me for "respectfully speaking up for what you believe in." You cannot tell someone that you love them and stay silent when people call for their death. "Love" is empty when you say someone's life isn't natural.

He could quietly vote "no" if that's what he believes is right. But I want him to know that every word he utters hurts his own blood. (NYPOST)

Her question is one I can mirror myself. How someone play with the life of a family member so easily?

A story that should be more public

Friends, this is a story that warms my heart. A couple decides they want to help take kids out of the system and give them a better life. Because they want to keep siblings and family together, they end up with 12 children before they closed their foster license. Here is a little of bit of their story:




Their home state of Arizona just passed a law giving preference to legally married couples, over just what is best for the child(ren). This is an honorable family; one who seeks to provide love, care and protection to all its members. Unfortunately, a majority of states do not provide protections to families like this. Only five states and the District of Columbia provide full state marriage benefits, where 10 states provide benefits similar to marriage called civil unions. Families like these are so strong, yet so fragile. Only two of Roger and Steve Ham's children are legally adopted by both. If something ever happened to Roger, what would happen to their children? Marriage rights are important, for many reasons.