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Outdated DOMA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.
No comments:
Post a Comment