#1
Posted: 6/3/06 at 2:42pm
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act was written to protect a state from having to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.
I thought it was just a statement of bigotry but it actually has a purpose.
If you are a same sex couple and marry in state X and have a child with your spouse in state X, both spouses have legal claim to that child. If spouse 1 decides she no longer loves spouse 2, she can pack up their baby and move to State Y. State Y does not allow gay marriage and thanks to DOMA does not have to recognize state X's law on gay marriage. Now spouse 1 has a whole state saying she is the sole parent of the child because it doesn't recognize the agreement spouse 1 and 2 entered into in state X. As far as state Y is concerned, spouse 2 has no legal rights to the child.
But wait, it gets better. Now spouse 1 petitions the courts in state X to get her child back. In state X, spouse 1 is guilty of several things (kidnapping,contempt,etc.) but in state y she has done nothing wrong?
I think there are people out there that would differ with the opinion that DOMA is an "essentially worthless" piece of legislation.
Clinton in his statements before signing DOMA stated that "I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation."
How is it possible to say this legislation does not excuse discrimination, when it so obviously discriminates against same sex couples?
I thought it was just a statement of bigotry but it actually has a purpose.
If you are a same sex couple and marry in state X and have a child with your spouse in state X, both spouses have legal claim to that child. If spouse 1 decides she no longer loves spouse 2, she can pack up their baby and move to State Y. State Y does not allow gay marriage and thanks to DOMA does not have to recognize state X's law on gay marriage. Now spouse 1 has a whole state saying she is the sole parent of the child because it doesn't recognize the agreement spouse 1 and 2 entered into in state X. As far as state Y is concerned, spouse 2 has no legal rights to the child.
But wait, it gets better. Now spouse 1 petitions the courts in state X to get her child back. In state X, spouse 1 is guilty of several things (kidnapping,contempt,etc.) but in state y she has done nothing wrong?
I think there are people out there that would differ with the opinion that DOMA is an "essentially worthless" piece of legislation.
Clinton in his statements before signing DOMA stated that "I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation."
How is it possible to say this legislation does not excuse discrimination, when it so obviously discriminates against same sex couples?
Updated On: 6/3/06 at 02:42 PM
