Marriage licensing in the USA is a state function. The federal government recognizes state-issued marriage licenses for purposes of immigration, benefits as an employer, and in distributing things like Social Security survivor benefits.
When the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, it reinforced the established, historical, natural definition of marriage as something uniting a bride and groom. There was no state in the union that recognized a brideless or groomless union as marriage, let alone issued neutered marriage licenses to such couples. Nor was there a single country in the world that had neutered their marriage laws. However, the writing was on the wall as marriage neutering advocates were doing what they could to change that.
An important function of DOMA, then, was to prevent an extremist activist judiciary in a single state from effectively neutering marriage for the whole nation through a systematic, organized effort of sending same-sex couples to the errant judiciary’s jurisdiction and then having those couples petition the governments of other states to recognize their brideless or groomless “marriages”. Which is exactly what would have happened. DOMA protected other states in the event that one state went off the deep end. It bought time.
It wasn't until 2001 that the first country fell to the marriage neutering activists – the Netherlands. Then, in 2004, per the imperial judiciary of Massachusetts, that state started handing out neutered marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples. Contrary to a wave of unstoppable momentum marriage neutering advocates claim to have, most states have recently reaffirmed the bride+groom requirement in their constitutions. Others have recently reaffirmed the requirement in lesser law. Only a handful of states have neutered marriage licensing (mostly by judicial imposition) and only a handful of others have no recent laws adopted on the matter.
Most states have picked sides on this debate. That's why I ask if DOMA, fifteen years later, has finished serving its most important purpose. Marriage neutering advocates in Congress have proposed a legislative repeal of DOMA, which, last I checked, appeared to me to be written to as to allow one single solitary state to impose polygamy on the rest of the states as well as the federal government. Whether DOMA is repealed or not, or whether it is enforced (as far as federal recognition of neutered marriage licenses) or not, that issue will be eventually heading to SCOTUS and may get there before the dispute over the California Marriage Amendment does. SCOTUS could invent a "right" to a neutered state marriage license nationwide or allow states to handle the issue themselves. Or, maybe it will do something else.
I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment that would make it clear that there is no Constitutional right to a neutered marriage license, but would, for federal purposes, give some recognition to neutered "marriage" licenses, domestic partnerships, and civil unions. Yes, those things should be treated differently from marriage because the kinds of associations to which they apply are different. I know there are many marriage defenders who would find the latter provision unacceptable and that marriage neutering advocates would find the earlier provision unacceptable. There are probably marriage defenders who don't think the earlier provision would be going far enough.
What do you think?
When the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, it reinforced the established, historical, natural definition of marriage as something uniting a bride and groom. There was no state in the union that recognized a brideless or groomless union as marriage, let alone issued neutered marriage licenses to such couples. Nor was there a single country in the world that had neutered their marriage laws. However, the writing was on the wall as marriage neutering advocates were doing what they could to change that.
An important function of DOMA, then, was to prevent an extremist activist judiciary in a single state from effectively neutering marriage for the whole nation through a systematic, organized effort of sending same-sex couples to the errant judiciary’s jurisdiction and then having those couples petition the governments of other states to recognize their brideless or groomless “marriages”. Which is exactly what would have happened. DOMA protected other states in the event that one state went off the deep end. It bought time.
It wasn't until 2001 that the first country fell to the marriage neutering activists – the Netherlands. Then, in 2004, per the imperial judiciary of Massachusetts, that state started handing out neutered marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples. Contrary to a wave of unstoppable momentum marriage neutering advocates claim to have, most states have recently reaffirmed the bride+groom requirement in their constitutions. Others have recently reaffirmed the requirement in lesser law. Only a handful of states have neutered marriage licensing (mostly by judicial imposition) and only a handful of others have no recent laws adopted on the matter.
Most states have picked sides on this debate. That's why I ask if DOMA, fifteen years later, has finished serving its most important purpose. Marriage neutering advocates in Congress have proposed a legislative repeal of DOMA, which, last I checked, appeared to me to be written to as to allow one single solitary state to impose polygamy on the rest of the states as well as the federal government. Whether DOMA is repealed or not, or whether it is enforced (as far as federal recognition of neutered marriage licenses) or not, that issue will be eventually heading to SCOTUS and may get there before the dispute over the California Marriage Amendment does. SCOTUS could invent a "right" to a neutered state marriage license nationwide or allow states to handle the issue themselves. Or, maybe it will do something else.
I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment that would make it clear that there is no Constitutional right to a neutered marriage license, but would, for federal purposes, give some recognition to neutered "marriage" licenses, domestic partnerships, and civil unions. Yes, those things should be treated differently from marriage because the kinds of associations to which they apply are different. I know there are many marriage defenders who would find the latter provision unacceptable and that marriage neutering advocates would find the earlier provision unacceptable. There are probably marriage defenders who don't think the earlier provision would be going far enough.
What do you think?
But no state should neuter marriage, which I understand to mean in the same sense that cats and dogs are neutered: remove the reproductive power, the right to make babies together.
ReplyDeleteDOMA didn't stop SSM it allowed SSM, and it should be replaced with a law that stop states from offering neutered marriage or denying procreation rights to married couples, and a law that limits reproduction to natural sexual reproduction of a man and a woman. And we can offer federal recognition to state CU's that are defined "marriage minus conception rights."