The issue of same-sex marriage is rolling into the courtroom with momentum.
This March, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the United States v. Windsor case, which will most likely prove section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional.
DOMA is a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. Section three specifically refuses to recognize same-sex marriages for all federal purposes.
In the past, this statute has been ruled unconstitutional in eight federal courts. That’s because there’s an obvious injustice.
Any civil rights advocate should be outraged by now. The government is blatantly discriminating against the gay community.
With DOMA as a federal law, people in a homosexual marriage receive no shared health insurance, social security benefits, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions or even family leave. Instead, only people in a heterosexual marriage are able to receive those benefits.
It’s almost as if the government diagnosed gay marriages as dysfunctional. Yet both the American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Psychological Association have recently supported same-sex marriages.
Even the Institute of American Values has changed its stance on gay marriage.
The institute is trying to reform the idea of marriage stating, “We propose a new conversation that brings together gays and lesbians who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same.” Instead of asking should gays get married, the institute wants people to start asking who wants to strengthen marriage.
These are sound organizations that are looking to change the stigma of same-sex marriage.
America isn’t the only country demanding justice. Tuesday, the French government released a plan that would make same-sex marriages and adoption legal.
Over the next two weeks, the French Parliament will be debating over the, “marriage for everyone” pledge. Advocates for this pledge want to replace “father” and “mother” with “parent 1” and “parent 2”.
But in order for the U.S. to make a difference, the federal law must be changed.
DOMA is a textbook example of federal law violating the fourteenth amendment. In the first section, the amendment declares equality to all citizens, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
By this exact definition, DOMA is unconstitutional.