The Real Argument Behind DOMA

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on marriage equality this week. Specifically, the court is hearing a challenge to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which currently denies federal benefits to legally-married same sex couples.

 

Outdated DOMA

People on both sides are in an uproar. You turn on CNN and you see people holding signs that read, “Kids Do Best with a Mom and a Dad” across the street from a person on the other side of the “aisle” (and street) who is holding up a rainbow.

Marriage equality has become one of the most prevalent social issues of this decade. How can I tell? Because I logged onto Facebook yesterday to see this in every friend’s news feed:

Yup. Facebook which wasn’t around in 1996. And just to make everyone I know who is reading this feel even older: Mark Zuckerberg was just 12 years old in 1996. Needless to say, times have changed since 1996, but apparently our laws haven't.

Today’s Case

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 defines marriage as between a man and a woman and therefore means that federal tax, Social Security, pension and bankruptcy benefits as well as family leave protections do not apply to legally married gay and lesbian couples.

Now, every Supreme Court case has a personal story behind it and today’s argument focuses around Edith “Edie” Windsor who was forced to pay a larger estate tax bill than a surviving spouse in a heterosexual marriage would have to pay.

Wait a second, WHAT?

So, this woman who has been legally married for ten years (yes—a decade) and has not been able to be the recipient of the federal benefits that two heterosexual couples take for granted, is now paying more in taxes?

 

The Real Argument

When I see protestors holding up defamatory signs about same-sex marriage, I wonder who these people really are. I’d love to see their personal, private lives played out on CNN and then I’d love to count and see how many are divorced, separated, or haven’t paid child support. 

Specifically, I’d love to see how many are behind on their taxes. After all, that’s what this case is really about—how the government will take its cut—no matter whom you marry.

Up in Arms Over Gun Control

I learned something today that I never knew.

Fundamentally, I guess I diid know this. But deep down, maybe I didn’t want to admit it. Well, here it is:

This country can be really fucked up.

Now, I love this country. I do. I love what we’re all about. I’ll fight for our constitution and for anyone’s civil rights.  However, I learned today that this country banned lawn darts a few years back. (Yup, it's true). I'm sure they were a huge threat to public safety. Much like the recent ban on soda in NY schools. 

What? Gun Control just wasn’t a concern then?

So, let me get this right…the government spent money lobbying and legislating both these items—probably more than you and I will make in our lifetimes—and no one said a thing. No one stood up and said that this is ridiculous.

“Sugar-pop” and “Darts” are now banned in some states, but not armor-piercing bullets and military-style assault weapons?

It's Time to Pull the Trigger on Gun Control

I don’t understand why everyone is up in arms about gun control.

Why are people upset about banning armor-piercing bullets and high-powered assault rifles that should only be shot by those of us who have sworn to protect the public and this country? (By the way, even the police and the military must be extensively trained on the use of high powered assault weapons before they can legally shoot them).

Now, I’m a moderate politically. I’m not that liberal. I’m not that conservative. And I grew up in a family of hunters. I even cleaned guns. (Yes, a shocker for most folks who know me now). I grew up with hunting dogs. I helped train hunting dogs. My father, (and the rest of my family), love their guns. They do. And they should. It’s their constitutional right to own one—a constitutional right that should not be revoked, re-legislated or frankly, rebuked.

However, no hunter in his or her right mind uses an AK-47 to shoot deer. If they did, they would be laughed at and I’m pretty sure their shooting skill (along with their criminal record) would be questioned by the father and son hunting team patiently waiting in a deer stand to take their shot.

I remember talking about gun control with my father when he was alive. We were talking about it after Columbine. I started to get really, really upset when I thought he would take the other side of the argument. (We all know what it is: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”)

Surprisingly, he didn’t take that side. He argued that no one should have their hands on an assault-rifle (or its high-powered bullets). As he explained, “They weren’t made for hunting or for ‘sport.’ They were made for the military to kill people.”

At the time, I thought to myself: “Well, that was blunt. But…true.”

A Battle Worth the Fight

Yes, this gun control legislation is going to be a battle. But it’s one we need to fight now. We need criminal background checks at gun shows. We need a ban on armor-piercing bullets and assault weapons.

Forget creating laws banning soda in schools because they make our kids fat. We’re way overdue for laws that first and foremost bring them home safe and sound.