"Defense" of marriage act

This insidious bill was passed into law, in 1996, proposed and backed by religious right wingers, and signed into law by none other than good old’ bubba’ Clinton. A rather strange alliance, wouldn’t you agree? You wouldn’t normally have expected the two to work together, but this was a very special piece of legislation.

What it does: The defense of marriage act, sets forth federal guidelines for just what exactly the United States federal government recognizes as a marriage, that being, a union between one man and one woman. Pretty nice, huh? Going further than that, it gives a state, which does not allow same sex marriages, the right to ignore a marriage license issued by another state to a homosexual couple. Sure this violates our constitution’s full faith and credit clause, but if we just ignore the legality issues, we can keep on going as though nothing is amiss. When you boil it down, this is nothing but anti-homosexual legislation, that’s what it’s there to do, screw over homosexuals, and deny them any recognizable marriage status, in the eyes of the federal government, and as many states (Currently 36 do not recognize homosexual marriages) as is possible, be it constitutional or not. This exempts homosexual couples from many special tax conditions, as well as over 300 other benefits, and special conditions. Not only that, but it denies homosexual couples any protection, or rights in the event of a divorce, custody hasn’t any meaning to a couple that wasn’t legally married in the first place. This is a humiliating and degrading denial of rights.

Now, why was this legislation passed? Well, just look at it’s name, the “defense of marriage act”. The religious right apparently felt threatened by the prospects of homosexuals getting married, so they wanted some laws in place to make it stop, congratulations, problem solved, and those uppity homosexuals are put right in their place. Why would president Clinton want to sign such a piece of legislation? It’s hard to say, most likely he wanted to keep from alienating Christian conservatives so close to re-election, though who can say for sure? To be honest, I don’t care what political motive he had he still dropped the ball on this one.

Anyway, does any of this seem a little hoaky to any of you? Legislation designed to fill the people’s wishes, and defend the sanctity of marriage? Is this what it’s really doing? Is this what the people even really want? The act got off to a rather auspicious start, being signed by president Clinton, quite a figure he is to defend the sanctity of marriage, isn’t he? Apparently it’s worse for a loving homosexual couple to tie the knot, then to break your marriage vows and have a series of affairs, I’m just glad a man like Clinton was in office at the time, to defend the sanctity of marriage for us all. But then, is there even an overwhelming view among American’s that the “sanctity” of marriage be preserved? How many American’s are truly worried that the idea of it would be lessened by homosexual marriages. . . how many even believe that it’s a serious endeavor at all? Judging by the ratings of shows such as “Who wants to marry a millionaire” “Meet the parents” “Joe Millionaire” and “Married by America” I’d say that there isn’t an overwhelming feeling of concern among the American people over the idea of marriage being made a mockery of, or if such concerns do exist, people are being uncharacteristically quiet about it. So this is a piece of legislation, which denies rights to certain peoples, and not others, to fit a supposed desire among the people, which doesn’t seem to exist at all. . . so what are we left with? Hate legislation, pure and simple, is all that this is. It’s unjust, and unfair, and hopefully will be repealed.

But then, perhaps I shouldn’t complain so much, I mean it takes a very special thing to cross party lines, and bring right wing republican congressmen, and a democrat president together, if there were more cooperation like this in our government, maybe the world would be a better place. I just wish that that thing which bought them together, wasn’t the overwhelming desire to screw me over.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just find it funny that billy was the one who was trying "to defend the sanctity of marriage for us all".

AS for the bill, do you get any legal benefits for being married? If not who cares if they recognize it...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

um does the US consitution recognise the international decloration of human rights?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think I remember something about us not signing it... hmmm... maybe I'm wrong though

 

why does that not surprise me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, asguard, unfortunately our constitution does not recognize this, as in the late 1700s, there was no such thing.

And yes, Persol, there are a number of legal/tax benefits for being married, as well as a number of considerations which aren't necessarily "benefits" but which are fairly necessary for dealing with things such as divorces, as I stated in the original post. There is indeed a reason to want your marriage to be recognized by the state and federal government, it's not all just about pride, though that in itself would certainly be enough.

 

i was under the impression that any treaty ratifide by the parliment ect became law of the country ratifying it

ie it didnt NEED to be around in the 1700 when there wasnt a UN to MAKE the decloration

 

Something tells me you're going to go through your whole life being disappointed, Asguard.

 

We're Americans. The world is our bitch.

As for the UN dec, I believe all members of the UN are called upon to uphold it. So yes, the US is a signatory.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Fuckwits.

*Edit*

"Fuckwits" excludes the Marquis.

 

Aye, I can see why this would be a problem then.

I think that it'd get changed back if a big deal was made of it. I can't imagine many people having a problem with same sex marriages except for religious zealots. It just seems like a Jim Crow law for gays.

 

that would be the relevent artical

notice how it implys that ALL marrages of 2 people are alowed??

 

It says nothing about sexual orientation.

 

Hah, Xev, why is dealing with you always such a pleasure? Your tact is outstanding.

**EDIT**

This is, of course in reference to your first post as opposed to your second, yes, you are correct it doesn't say anything about sexual orientation, and it specifies Man and woman. . . though doesn't nessiserily say that it needs to be a Man and a Woman getting married. Too vague to say that it protects homosexual marriages, unfortunately.

 

that is the point xev

doesnt limit it to a man and a women

 

Thanks! It always pleases me when I'm called tactless by people who have no compunction about lying about my country.

So thanks for your support!

Thanks much.

Asguard:

Doesn't exclude a woman and her Thinkpad 600i either, what's your point?

It doesn't define marriage. Thus your contention is bullshit.

 

Xev, where the hell is this comming from? Please go flame somewhere else. I don't know what your problem is. What do you mean by "lying about my country". What have I said here that is false? And it's my country, too, thank you very much, legislation biased against me or not, I still call it home.

 

Mystech:

I'm not flaming you at all. I'm saying thanks for the compliment.

Sheesh. Somebody's hostile today.

 

She has, and wonders what the relevence of her sex life is?

 

well from what i can see it wouldnt make any difference if it said any 2 entitys are entitled to get married

from a quick flick i can see 3 different sections at least that have been breached already with no conciqnences so why would this one make a difference

 

I hate to say it, but United nations Schmunited nations! Yes, I have to go that far, Shmunited! There, I said it! The United States tends to govern itself first, and heed otheres later if at all, MOST countries are like that, in fact, and I think the world is better for it. I honestly don't think that it's the UN's problem or their place to get involved, if I as a gay American want to make life for gay Americans better, I think that's something we should tackle within the boarders of America, no crying off to the world burocrasy.