Gay Marriage
DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) enacted September 21, 1996, is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Like other controversial laws (i.e., Roe v Wade, ObamaCare), the debate continues over the definition of marriage in America. To add to the debate, the Obama Justice Department has taken the very unusual stance of saying it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage. After the SCOTUS decision on ObamaCare, the Obama Administration has asked the Supreme Court for a quick review of gay marriage law. Keep up with the ongoing debate below. On June 26, 2013, The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote. The What you need to know about Marriage guide prepared by The Heritage Foundation answers the top 15 questions on the subject of marriage.

A Tyrannical, 'Value Signaling' Bill

from The Gray Area:
If only it did what the title suggests, everyone would support it. Lets examine why it is a political narrative put into law and an unnecessary 'value signal'. The Respect For Marriage Act would codify the ability of same-sex as well as interracial couples to get married and require states to recognize the marriage.
  • Both of these are already legal and neither of these are under attack.
  • Look around, do you see gay and inter-racial couples!
This law is not currently enforceable.
  • So why would you need a law on the books that is 'unenforceable'?
  • Because proponents say:
    • this enshrines marriage equality for federal law purposes
    • this provides additional protections at the state level
  • Oh, so I see, this law is necessary for civil lawsuits.
The legislation would also repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.
  • So, a traditional marriage between a man & woman no longer has standing in this country?
Lawmakers have changed the wording of the legislation in response to concerns about how it would affect religious groups. The latest version says nonprofit religious groups won’t be compelled to participate in or support a same-sex marriage. Declining to do so wouldn’t put the group’s tax-exempt status at risk, lawmakers behind the measure said.
  • Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), who voted against the measure, said the religious liberty protections were “severely anemic and largely illusory” despite the changes.
  • Roger Severino, vice president of domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, said the legislation’s wording on tax-exempt status doesn’t provide affirmative protection that such a loss wouldn’t happen in the future.“This bill puts a giant target on the back of individuals, nonprofit organizations, adoption agencies, schools, and businesses that hold fast to the truth about marriage,” he said.
Some Republican lawmakers have said same-sex marriage wasn’t at risk and the bill was unnecessary. So why, then, pass such a bill.  Identity politics and the power to oppress through lawsuits.
  • Identity political. This bill sends a message to the LGBTQ community that the Democrats are on your side. It attempts to call out those Republicans who vote against it for future political advantage. It is therefore just a political virtue signal in search of a real issue. A 'value signal' to the country that we want dramatic changes to marriage, the family,  religion and more is coming.
  • Power to oppress.  Though the law is currently unenforceable, having the law on the books enables activists to hassle businesses, schools, churches and individuals with lawsuits.
The reality is that the vast majority of Americans do not care who wants to get married. You are free to be you.  It is not an issue anymore. Non discrimination laws already protect every American with recourse in the secular courts.  Traditionally what that has meant in this country is your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa.  What activists and proponents of this and other similar bills wants is for Americans to be forced to forfeit their individual rights.  To be forced to care if they don't. To be forced to promote others issues if they don't agree.  And, to be forced to support people they don not agree with.   Forcing people to think & do anything in this country is unconstitutional.  On a grander scale, it is tyrannical. They are missing the point here, in support of a political narrative. A good bill could be written that would actually do what the title suggests, Respect for Marriage, but such a bill would not have the ability for an activist to have grounds to indiscriminately sue and later to forbid. The proposal faces at least one more vote in the Senate and would need approval by the House by the end of the year to become law. More From The Wall Street Journal:

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )