The article by Kilian Melloy provides the discussion of the issue related to the “Defense of Marriage” Act (DOMA) that “denies gay and lesbian families federal recognition and empowers states to ignore marriages granted to same-sex couples in other jurisdictions” (Melloy n. p.). The question under consideration is that Congress hires John Boehner (a Bush-era solicitor general) to defend the law in the court. It is a very expensive step to take, thus it is met with considerable criticism.
It seems to me that the issue discussed in the article lack common sense. First of all, I believe that position that gay marriages cannot be recognized legal undermines human rights. I support the decision of president Obama to stop defending DOMA in federal court, because, “part of DOMA violates Constitutional guarantees” (Melloy n. p.).
Moreover, the hiring will cost $520 per hour and, according to the article, “No one knows how long it will take to resolve the suits against DOMA, or how big the tab taxpayers will be handed might grow” (Melloy n. p.). Thus, it violates the taxpayers, and gay people are one of them.
As I have already pointed, I consider that DOMA Act is useless and violates human and constitutional rights. This should not be discussed whether two people who are in love are allowed to marry or not. Many counties have already legalized gay marriages and it threatened neither “moral face” of the nation, nor its economic position.
The HRC mentions in its press release devoted to the issue, “The Justice Department stopped defending DOMA because they concluded that laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation should receive a higher level of scrutiny by courts,” (Melloy n. p.). I strongly agree that the DOMA law discriminates rights of gay people making them “second-citizens” of the country. The Congress’s 1996 arguments for passing the law provided that:
“It is necessary because marriage equality is ’a radical, untested and inherently flawed social experiment’ and contrary to the ’moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality” (Melloy n. p.).
I believe that this statement is no longer valid because modern society should not focus on particular religious norms, but be open for people of all religions, races and sexual orientation.
Furthermore, the financial side of the issue is also very important. First of all, the taxpayers’ money will be spent, and this expense has nothing in common with the improvement of education, healthcare or economic state of the country.
In addition, it seems to be an absurd that people’s money (gay people in this case) will be spent on discrimination of their rights. In this light, the expense cannot be considerable “legitimate”. Finally, taking in into consideration the facts that “public opinion surveys show that a majority of Americans–51%–oppose DOMA” (Melloy n. p.), and that the case will waste much of the taxpayers’ money, the Defense of the DOMA law is not reasonable.
These days, gay people still face inequality and discrimination. I believe that DOMA law contributes to this discrimination and it should be repealed. The article under consideration discusses moral and financial issues related to the decision of the Congress to hire attorney to defend DOMA that discriminates the gay people’s right to get married. I consider this decision senseless in terms of constitutional rights of American citizens, as well as financial issues. I support the idea that it would be a useless waste of taxpayers’ money.
Works Cited
Melloy, Kilian. “Congress Hires Attorney to Defend DOMA – At Top Taxpayer Dollar”. Edge Miami., 2011. Web.