In Defense of Marriage Act 1996 Essay

The US federal law Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 asserts that same-sex marriage ought not to be treated as valid even if it is so in other states. Under this act, marriage is legitimate if it involves one man and one woman. This law does not recognize married couples of the same gender. In other words, as those whose marriage concurs with it enjoy federal benefits, the other category suffers discrimination because of their illegibility for the benefits. This law denies the rights of the states to a large extend and therefore, I agree with the editorial writer’s viewpoint that the law is unjustified as it is unconstitutional as elaborated next.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is against the constitution. For instance, under this law marriage comes in as a factor that determines whether one is entitled to benefits or not. The federal government has it that “…marital status is a factor in eligibility for benefits” (Geidner 7). In addition, following the ordaining of the law, many countries have permitted not only civil unions but also gay marriages. It, therefore, collides with the constitution that holds that all people are eligible for benefits, with regard to their citizenship and regardless of their marital status. Any person with a marriage not recognized under the federal laws is liable of paying more tax compared to the one whose marriage abides by the laws. This on the other hand is unfair, hence declaring the act indefensible like the editorial writer.

As the editorial holds, the power of the law is lower than that of the congress and therefore its application on the subject of marriage is like depriving the congress of its powers of regulating the marriages. This claim concurs with the promise and the performance of the American democracy. The editorial writer also addresses the issue of discrimination. The writer observes that the law significantly discriminates the gay people. “A focusing on a group…subjected to unfair discrimination…is supposed to get a hard test” (Bernie Para. 7). This is in accordance with the core democratic value ‘Interest group’ as it appears in the promises of American democracy. This value recognizes such groups as gay people, who also need to enjoy their rights not based on their marital status but based on citizenship.

The US constitution seems relevant to this piece. The editorial upholds the rights of same-sex married couples claiming that they too deserve social security and the right to tax returns as well as survivor payments. The US constitution on the other hand bears the Full Faith and Credit Clause that supports same-sex marriages, granting the couples their relevant rights. In addition, “The tenth amendment to the US Constitution reserves to the state any power not delegated by the federal government” (Dickens 4). The editorial, in favor of this clause, opens by declaring DOMA indefensible because it does not uphold it.

The issue of federalism comes in handy in this piece. For instance, while President Obama upholds the act, the editorial reveals that some of his government lawyers fight it, clearly signifying federalism. In addition, while some view the law as strictly against same-sex marriages, others have sought to reveal how it “…prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages” (Dickens 6), which too depicts the issue of federalism. Moreover, civil liberty and civil rights stand out well in the piece. The editorial upholds the subject of freedom as it is addressed in the US constitution that grants people the freedom of choice, not sparing the freedom of marriage. Addressing the issue of civil rights, the editorial opposes the act because it denies the discriminated group their share of the right by the reason of their citizenship hence making the act indefensible.

Works Cited

Bernie, Becker. “In Defense of Marriage Act.”New York Times 2011.

Dickens, Jim. Lect Law: Defense of Marriage Act 5. West Virginia: WVA, 2003. Print.

Geidner, Chris. Federal Court Rules DOMA Sec. 3 Violates Equal Protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.