On the news...
Mar. 3rd, 2009 10:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccastareyesI found out today that some folks in Massachusetts are trying to get part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act overturned. Good on them.
Okay, basically the DoMA was passed in the 90s and said:
1. Even if the state recognizes same-sex marriage, the federal government doesn't.
2. Other states don't have to recognize each other's marriages if both parties are the same sex.
Now, I don't like DoMA. Not just for the obvious 'gay rights' reason -- I think the second part is constitutionally unsound, given that Article IV of the US Constitution requires states to give 'full faith and credit' to other states' decisions. (Then again, it does say that Congress can regulate this.) (And there's something ironic about how the Republican Party, supposed modern champion of 'states' rights' supports DoMA, which allows the federal government to refuse to recognize (some) marriages performed by a state and voted on by its constituents. So... States Rights, except when they offend our delicate moral sensibilities.)
Anyway, it's looking good in that even the President, who I don't always agree on with regards to gay rights*, but even he admits this is a Dumb idea if you want states to be able to handle marriages.
* Oh my god, a liberal who doesn't think Barack Obama walks on water. Someone get the tranquilizer gun so we can preserve this rare species.
So, anyways, it seems a group of same-sex married couples in Massachusetts are suing the government to get the same rights that opposite-sex married couples in their state get. They mentioned some like:
1. Social security benefits for widows and widowers.
2. Ability to file taxes jointly.
3. Employee benefit for spouses of people employed by the federal government. Specifically they mentioned a letter carrier who could get health insurance for herself and her children from the Postal Service (a federal office), but not for her wife. There was also a husband of a former congressman who lost his husband's retirement benefits and pension on his husband's death, while the government would have paid out to a wife (or the husband of a congresswoman).
It wasn't mentioned, but I've heard it said previously:
4. Ability to get a visa for a spouse who is not a US citizen or permanent resident.
((IIRC, this is also one argument against civil unions and domestic partnerships -- even if DoMA is repealed, the federal government does not recognize civil unions as marriage and states need not transfer the benefits if they don't have a 'civil union' category. While, other than DoMA, states have to recognize each other's marriages and the federal government grants benefits to married couples.))
I think a lot of folks forget what all marriage gets someone. I've also read that a lot of people my age are starting to see this as a civil rights/fairness issue, rather than a matter of morality. Which is fine by me, because it is.
Okay, basically the DoMA was passed in the 90s and said:
1. Even if the state recognizes same-sex marriage, the federal government doesn't.
2. Other states don't have to recognize each other's marriages if both parties are the same sex.
Now, I don't like DoMA. Not just for the obvious 'gay rights' reason -- I think the second part is constitutionally unsound, given that Article IV of the US Constitution requires states to give 'full faith and credit' to other states' decisions. (Then again, it does say that Congress can regulate this.) (And there's something ironic about how the Republican Party, supposed modern champion of 'states' rights' supports DoMA, which allows the federal government to refuse to recognize (some) marriages performed by a state and voted on by its constituents. So... States Rights, except when they offend our delicate moral sensibilities.)
Anyway, it's looking good in that even the President, who I don't always agree on with regards to gay rights*, but even he admits this is a Dumb idea if you want states to be able to handle marriages.
* Oh my god, a liberal who doesn't think Barack Obama walks on water. Someone get the tranquilizer gun so we can preserve this rare species.
So, anyways, it seems a group of same-sex married couples in Massachusetts are suing the government to get the same rights that opposite-sex married couples in their state get. They mentioned some like:
1. Social security benefits for widows and widowers.
2. Ability to file taxes jointly.
3. Employee benefit for spouses of people employed by the federal government. Specifically they mentioned a letter carrier who could get health insurance for herself and her children from the Postal Service (a federal office), but not for her wife. There was also a husband of a former congressman who lost his husband's retirement benefits and pension on his husband's death, while the government would have paid out to a wife (or the husband of a congresswoman).
It wasn't mentioned, but I've heard it said previously:
4. Ability to get a visa for a spouse who is not a US citizen or permanent resident.
((IIRC, this is also one argument against civil unions and domestic partnerships -- even if DoMA is repealed, the federal government does not recognize civil unions as marriage and states need not transfer the benefits if they don't have a 'civil union' category. While, other than DoMA, states have to recognize each other's marriages and the federal government grants benefits to married couples.))
I think a lot of folks forget what all marriage gets someone. I've also read that a lot of people my age are starting to see this as a civil rights/fairness issue, rather than a matter of morality. Which is fine by me, because it is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 09:43 am (UTC)And ho, fellow liberal non-worshiper of Obama, you can share my secret bunker if you need to. I'll be in the corner muttering darkly about increased military action in the Middle East, don't mind me, we can talk about the gay rights "middle ground" BS anyhow.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 10:31 am (UTC)Well, I want someone to give the Republican Party a good kick in the pants, so that the Democrats realize they don't get the gay vote* bu default.
* And a bunch of other votes. Really, even if I am a uber-liberal, I want a conservative party that is not crazy. Both because it forces the liberal party/ies to keep conscious that they can lose votes on issues, and because I don't want to live in a one-party state.
I could do a long post about my politics, but the sound byte is that I live with other people who share core values with me** but disagree with the methods to get those, but it's harder to work with people who have different values.
** Basically, with (some) economic conservatives I can at least assume that they still value fairness, but the point of contention is 'do we live in a meritocracy?'. That's what it comes down to with my dad, who is borderline-libertarian. The whole neo-conservative approach of legislating morality and freedom for security is the exact opposite of what I value.