Stepping Into Troubled Waters
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has seen its share of controversy, even after a strong bipartisan effort passed it into law. The vote was 342-67 in the House of Representatives and 85-14 in the Senate in 1996.
Last week, the Supreme Court of The United States heard arguments which could spell the downfall of federal definitions and state controls.
When written, for all intents and purposes, there was a need to place boundaries on the federal government, how much they could interject via the Constitution, and a definition which surrounded federal benefits.
Think about it; the federal government only feels a need to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" for of tax purposes. Furthermore, what is not defined, but is easily construed as a civil right needed to be nipped by Congress. In doing this, it had to challenge federal intervention in a process that began as a religious and common law issue.
Another change in the U.S. Code, with more than1100 citations listed, maintains that the federal government cannot force any state to abide by the same-sex marriage statutes set up in another state. Marriage has always been identified and court processes issued by the state host. Domicile plays a huge part in this process, since marriage benefits and even disadvantages in the federal tax code were put into place for those who seek to be united.
As of now, North Carolina has joined others in making it the 30th state to outlaw same-sex marriage. The issue, no matter how popular a talking point, belongs to the individual.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg compares marriages as either that of "the full marriage, and then this skim milk marriage.”
Justice Elena Kagen questions the reason for DOMA, reading a quote: "Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express disapproval of homosexuality." She asking: "Is this what happened here?"
Justice Antonin Scalia is appalled by the Supreme Court’s discussions as of late. His thoughts are uber-conservative and denote individualism, rightfully so.
Chief Justice John Roberts, with the money question, asked if "you don't doubt that the lobby supporting the act of same-sex marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?”
Interestingly enough, it was pointed out that gays were not welcome to come to the United States in the 90s.
Here is a problem; since when do we ask for sexual orientation on passports or upon entrance. This issue needs immediate attention and removal.
When we relied on common law, marriage, divorce, and the real property aspects were handled by churches, and eventually the states as individual entities. The male had a majority of the rights, including ownership of all property and, yes, even children, as they were a possession. Progress has been made as to equality, with women being able to enjoy the benefits of the same laws as defined by the states.
Abilities to marry in backyards, with a justice of the peace and not in churches, has been on an incline. We could say the issue here is not civil liberties, but a larger issue of religious freedom and the First Amendment; or we could dismiss this and believe that it is an individual choice.
Even though it would be great to be accepting of every trait of a person, nothing should ever interfere with one man's ideals in order to benefit another group in society. This does not mean that people who find themselves in differing scenarios need to be prevented from living their life; they should not attempt to force a societal acceptance of their lifestyle or needs.
The government has been extrapolating on this for a very long time, removing individual freedoms. The tax code pushes for no marriage or two income marriage for the majority.
Natural rights and individualism have been compromised every time we are defined by government as a unit.
In human relations, Americanized means acceptable public behaviors which are frowned upon in traditional collectivist societies, such as seen in Asia. In the Middle East, wealthy children of royalty and oil moguls have been known to flee their home country, due to the implications of alternative lifestyles.
Since when do we have to accept people for their sexual orientation and not for their individual traits? If you enjoy a great conversation or silent moments, trust, respect, and accept a person for their accomplishments and who they are, not for their behind the scenes gestures, the world would be a better place.
Recently, I learned that love is an action word, not an emotion. The decision to meet in the middle, picking up that person when they fall, creating life decisions, or accepting flaws has nothing to do with the emotional or sexual nature of a relationship and is something that many strive for. Yes, emotions are necessary for passion and beliefs, but identifying what thwarts them or what they really are is sometimes of great difficulty.
If we look at love as an emotion, hate, anxiety, pain, and addiction could very well describe such. In describing the outcome, personal actions and emotions need to be present, therefore many emotions equivalent could be the ones perceived incorrectly.
We live in an imperfect world where friends, lovers, and the marrying kind are on different plains; all of them benefit the way we live and grow. Finding someone special is not a role of government, but of an individual.
Should the government make such controversial decisions on defining societal norms; or should they allow people to live and learn? Is this a state decision? Should it be defined for tax purposes? Wouldn't it be easier just to change the tax code to individual standards and rid society of a duplication of taxation (with loopholes) for estates, creating true equality?
retraining my brain for the future, conferring with my past...