Saturday, February 25, 2012

History of discrimination doesn't justify continuing

Karen Golinski wants to put her partner on her employer supplied health plan. A bit of irony -- Golinski works for the 9th Circuit Court, which just ruled favorably in the Calif. gay marriage case. But that means Golinski is a federal gov't employee and the Defense of Marriage Act won't allow her marriage to be recognized for benefits.

Judge Jeffrey White, a federal judge, has declared DOMA to be unconstitutional. This is one of many cases about DOMA working their way towards the Supremes. Most of those that have had a ruling have said it is unconstitutional.

Ari Ezra Waldman, a lawyer, lists some of the ways this particular case adds to the argument.

The 9th Circuit ruling on the Calif. case included one dissent. That judge thought that it was fine for voters to vote for discrimination as long as they had a good reason, even if that reason was based on lies. Judge White's ruling said that previous cases (Romer and Lawrence) have already said moral disapproval is not enough to justify discrimination.

DOMA does not encourage responsible procreation and child rearing because it has nothing to do with straight marriages and their kids.

Denying federal recognition of married gay couples only burdens those couples.

It does not nurture traditional marriage because a person in a gay marriage is already married and will not marry someone of the opposite sex.

DOMA does not maintain the status quo. DOMA was the first time the federal gov't defined marriage.

A long history of discrimination does not justify its continuance.

A desire to be cautious in a hot social issue does not permit continued discrimination.

No doubt the case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit -- yeah, the court where Golinski works.

No comments:

Post a Comment