EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mourning Gay Marriage in Maine
After 31 defeats at the ballot box, America's gay community can't rely on the majority to promote their right to marry
Tuesday night in Maine, supporters of a state law that would have legalised same-sex marriage lost, 53-47%. Marriage equality advocates had hoped that Maine would be the first state in the US to approve gay marriage in a statewide ballot, but the record of majorities saying no to marriage equality remains unbroken.
After whinging about "activist judges" for a decade, the rightwing has convinced a plurality of Americans that decisions about same-sex marriage shouldn't be made in the courts - and it's because they know, and here is more evidence, that putting the rights of a marginalised class to the majority means those rights will be denied. The judiciary, however, is generally less susceptible to persuasion by expensive campaigns run by the anti-gay industry.
Historically, we have depended on the courts to make decisions about the application of constitutional guarantees in spite of popular opinion, and they have repeatedly secured protections for marginalised groups decades before Congress and state legislatures, which more closely track public opinion, would have done. John Rogers once noted that "when the supreme court struck down the bans against interracial marriage in 1968 through Virginia v Loving, 72% of Americans were against interracial marriage. As a matter of fact, approval of interracial marriage in the US didn't cross the positive threshold until - sweet God - 1991".
That's exactly 30 years after our current president was born to an interracial couple.
Waiting for the whole of society to be on board with granting equal rights to everyone is simply not in our collective best interest. There is no legitimate claim to be made by opponents of marriage equality that their lives will be diminished by extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. Too much evidence to the contrary, even now in their own country (I'm looking at you, Massachusetts), debunks that assertion thoroughly. There is only the reality that people denied their equal rights stand to gain - and that is a net benefit to the entire community.
Sometimes the stragglers at the tail end of this slow march of progress need a boot to get them moving forward. When the legislatures haven't provided it, it has been the judiciary's job to deliver it instead, as marginalised groups were never meant to have no recourse against discriminatory practices, even if the will of the majority is to extend the codified biases in perpetuity. Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.
And so came the howling about "activist judges". But in Maine, it was not left to a judge to decide the fate of same-sex marriage, but instead to the state legislature. And then - what a surprise - that wasn't good enough, either. It still had to be brought before Maine's voters, so that every straight person in the state would be allowed to cast their own opinion on whether their gay neighbours should be allowed their rights, which is only fair. On some planet where "fair" means "deferential to the tyranny of the majority so as not to hurt their precious wee feelings".
This country is not, and never has been, well-served by leaving the civil rights of the minority in the hands of the majority. Putting that up to a vote which is subject to deeply held prejudice is ruling not by democracy, but by mob mentality.
There is, at this point, only one thing to be done: The US Congress needs to repeal the Defence of Marriage Act. It stands, currently, as a wall between gay couples and the courts. Couples have no right to sue if their home state won't recognise the legal marriage they can get in another state.
We need to rescind any and all barriers to marriage equality being decided in the judiciary, lest we allow the anti-gay industry, which funnelled millions from out of state into Maine, to continue calling the shots.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
60 Comments so far
Show AllWho cares about gay marriages? Marry whoever you want but marriages mean nothing unless you have your bread and water first. People are more concerned about jobs and worry about getting thrown into wars. They don't care about same sex marriage and see it as a distraction. Where's the respect for singles in all of this anyway? This is just another frivolous social issue to distract people from what's really important.
"Marry whoever you want"
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Lesbians and gays CANNOT marry whomever they want.
"People are more concerned about jobs and worry about getting thrown into wars. They don't care about same sex marriage and see it as a distraction."
If they "don't care about it" why did they come out and vote against it? And of course, anything that doesn't affect YOU is a distraction.
"This is just another frivolous social issue to distract people from what's really important."
I'll put it this way: in 30 years time, you better have come up with a plausible excuse when your children and grandchildren, your nieces and nephews, ask you why you are a bigot.
"I'll put it this way: in 30 years time, you better have come up with a plausible excuse when your children and grandchildren, your nieces and nephews, ask you why you are a bigot."
With the way the economy is bound to keep failing and the environment falls apart, I seriously doubt they'll find the time to be that picky about marriage. I could turn out to be an "Archie Bunker" by then if any of them do go gay/lesbian since I'll probably get scared about my own family doing it. I mean in tougher times, a man looks up to a woman and a woman looks up to a man and boy do those opposites attract like Mars and Venus. I wouldn't mind any of them going that route but I'd probably fall into the temptation to embarrass and humiliate them for not considering the traditional marriage of finding a partner of the opposite sex.
You really ought to take my suggestion and shut your mouth. Your ignorance and bigotry are appalling. There is enough pollution in the air without yours.
A bigot for what? I didn't say that I would forbid them from doing it. I only said that I might be tempted into embarrassing them because I wouldn't know what to say. What's wrong with a little preference?
"I only said that I might be tempted into embarrassing them because I wouldn't know what to say. What's wrong with a little preference?"
"I only said that I might be tempted into embarrassing them because I wouldn't know what to say about a white marrying a non-white, especially one of them blacks. What's wrong with a little preference for your own race?"
You can try forbidding them. Just like white racist bigots have forbidden their children from marrying non-whites. See how that gets you.
"I'd probably fall into the temptation to embarrass and humiliate them for not considering the traditional marriage of finding a partner of the opposite sex."
_________________________________
No doubt. Yet, as with your comments on this issue, you'll succeed only in embarrassing yourself.
Even if, like Archie Bunker until the light bulb finally goes on in the climax of the episode, you're unable or unwilling to perceive the embarrassment.
It remains depressingly popular to view political action as a kind of hierarchy of needs, like Abraham Maslow's famous pyramid. Maslow's concept remains valid for its purposes, but it's simply misplaced and absurd to adapt it to politics.
Same-sex marriage is fundamentally a civil rights issue. Civil rights and social justice may SEEM like "luxuries", or at any rate "options" that must wait until more fundamental needs are met. But at best, that's an argument of expediency, not principle.
The pyramid analysis seems eminently obvious and sensible, but it can be refuted by a simple comparison: it would be like arguing during, say, Eisenhower's second term, facing the very real threat of global nuclear annihilation, that there's WAY more important stuff to worry about than whether states maintain "colored" and "white" water fountains, and other manifestations of social, institutional, and structural racism.
I mean, DAMN! At least they're GETTING water fountains! They can RIDE the damn bus! Can civil-rights advocates be so PETTY and SELF-CENTERED as to ignore the Big Picture, and divert finite resources to fussing about such relatively minor, not to say inflated, wrongs?
Civil rights is not something amenable to the kind of prioritizing you postulate.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I didn't mean that in a sense that I would make them very angry and put him or her in tears to the point that he or she would never want to see me again. I'm pretty sure my wife would prevent me from hurting the younger one as well as from embarrassing myself. I don't know what I'll be like when I'm in my 70s so I only assumed the worst case scenario.
Here is what I view as the main problem with trying too hard to fight for same sex marriages. First, let's get back to what marriages are really for. It's not about love but about money and property. Unmarried people are not as likely to get some of the same privileges as married people and that can be understandable but I do think they don't deserve too many disadvantages. That said, instead of same sex partners and singles fighting for economic equality as married couples, the way I see it, same sex marriage proponents simply want one group to join the materialist class with no regards for the singles. In a sense, that contradicts the progressive view of owning property and being rich.
Unlike minorities of the 1960s, I don't see the same sex people suffering the same fate of being stripped financially. Your view of gay marriage being civil rights I understand but must somewhat disagree.
You best quit while you're ahead (or already behind ha, ha) Max. If you say you're not pro-gay marriage, you will be hit with all sorts of unsavory labels. You may think these sorts of 'attacks' and name-calling make you look bad, stupid, bigoted, trollish, psychotic, or whatever, but it speaks more to their character than yours. One has a right to voice his/her opinion here without being flamed. And please don't grovel and fawn; it's not warranted, and you will indeed only 'dig yourself deeper.'
Hmmm, I might be looking at this on a different view from what others see it as. Perhaps my mistake might be taking the word marriage too literally while others view the rights of gays and lesbians to have a marriage as a civil rights issue. I get a strange feeling that for this issue just like the issue of race where I said I was colorblind and got sacked for opposing affirmative action and questioning the continuing of reparations when I thought it was all over, I might be running into trouble now that I see the comments. I think I'll slowly back out and rethink this through. I don't think I'm good at social issues.
"I wouldn't mind any of them going that route but I'd probably fall into the temptation to embarrass and humiliate them for not considering the traditional marriage of finding a partner of the opposite sex."
I see. The mask has come off. It isn't that you don't care, despite your pretenses. You'd go to the point of embarrassing and humiliating them.
In 30 years time, you will find yourself in the same position that the white racist bigots are in now.
On the contrary, putting same sex marriage over the ongoing economic crisis is like putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps I shouldn't have let my weakness on temptations slip.
I care, and I don't find it frivolous - my life and my future are very much not frivolous to me. And, since I am unfortunately "single" right now, I have all the respect in the world for other single people. Does that answer your question?
You've never really thought about what it would be like to be a member of a group that doesn't have the same rights as other people, have you? If you had, you would realize how incredibly offensive your statements are that "people" (apparently homosexuals aren't people) don't care about same sex marriage and that this is a "frivolous social issue." It was only a few decades ago that mixed-race marriages were illegal. Would you also say that denying mixed-race couples the right to marry each other just because they happened to be of different ethnicities was a "frivolous social issue" rather than a fundamental violation of their rights, or does your bigotry only extend to homosexuals?
Perhaps your 'group' should not be so quick to malign others who do not share your fervor. Is kicking them in the head with the bigot label fostering understanding, or only making them cling more strongly to their anti-gay stand? This is not the way to go about winning the hearts and minds of those whom you seek support from. The zeal of self-righteous condemnation tends to be a repelling force with regard to any 'cause.'
Someone needs to put forward a referendum making Roman Catholicism the official religion of Maine and California, with everyone required to attend Mass and tithe. Since it's the largest distinct sect, it's only right that it should be allowed to compel other people to live by its rules, right? The rules would naturally include once again making divorce and contraception illegal, just as they were well within living memory.
Perhaps make priestly paedophilia legal, too. After all, that Church is the "One, True, Holy and Apostolic Church". If you don't believe that, just ask The Rat--he'll tell you.
Such an initiative might even make the non-RC hypocrites think - especially since many RC bishops would *certainly* come out, drooling and whimpering with desire, in favor!
Regarding Proposition 8, the Mormon Church had a lot more to do with its' passing than the Catholic Church. Plus, let's not forget the various Christian conservative Protestant denominations (especially the Southern Baptists & Evangelical Lutherans) who chimed in as well.
While the Catholic Church makes itself an easy target, it is not the only one that deserves to be in the cross hairs.
I do understand that the fundy proddies were heavily involved too (tho I rather doubt there are that many Mormons in Maine compared to RCs).
The purpose would be to get the proddies and the rest all upset, since none of them would be willing to turn papist I'm sure. The predatory drooling on the one side and the outraged resistance on the other would make, I'd think, an incomparable teaching moment: that 'freedom of religion' is freedom FROM religion, not freedom to impose one's own religious beliefs via the secular law.
NateW: Very astute comments!
I grew up attending the Lutheran Church in the Midwest, southwest Iowa, to be more definitive about the location. Still, yet, to this day, the church I attended continues to teach and preach submission of women! The sins of "we the people' are too long to list! As for homosexuality, they do NOT approve! Here it is straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak:
"The Lord teaches us through His Word that homosexuality is a sinful distortion of His desire that one man and one woman live together in marriage as husband and wife. God categorically prohibits homosexuality. Our church, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, has declared that homosexual behavior is "intrinsically sinful." -- A.L. Barry, President
The Lord (if indeed A.L. Barry means Jesus Christ of the Gospels) never said anything about homosexuality. At times he did live in isolation with twelve men, one of whom he called his beloved disciple. He did say "Whomever is without sin, cast the first stone". Show me where Jesus ever said anything about marriage or one women to one man. What Word are you talking about, Mr. Barry? You know, some of us can read as well as you--and, apparently, with better understanding.
Boycott Maine Lobster: It is an abomination in the eyes of god ...
Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Yep. And any company that sells clothing made of mixed fibers.
You can take my poly-cotton blend when you pry it from my cold dead hands...er off my cold dead body?
I wonder if there are any gay lobsters?
EEEEeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkk!!!
LGBT People, just live with whomever you choose and stop taking up so much time, money, and energy trying to get approval from the church and/or state to say it's okay for you to live with the person you love. Just do it!
You say it's about financial benefits - what about us single people? We, too, should get the same benefits as married people, but we're not doing Referendums and spending millions that could go towards feeding people and working towards stopping climate change.
Jiminy Christmas, enough already!
Single people, many of whom are gay, SHOULD be doing Referendums and SHOULD be trying to match the millions that the Catholic and Mormon churches spend. Get off your lazy ass and high horse. Jiminy Christmas!
DoSomething, see my 3:00 pm to Max Payne.
It may not make a bit of sense to you, but it may help to read a sample of post middle-school argument.
"Jiminy Christmas" indeed.
· Yr Obd't Servant
It's always so galling to me how the people who slap us down the hardest are our own progressives. It's just sad.
Single straight people make a choice to be single or to be married. Gays do not have this choice. That is why same-sex marriage is a worthwhile pursuit independent of the rights of single people.
We are all aware of the problems in the economy. We are all aware of the problems with the environment. Our country has faced so many huge, huge problems over the years. In the 50's and 60's we had issues with our economy, and with major wars all over the world, and the civil rights issue, and too many others to count. We managed to address all of them one way or another. We do not have a single-issue government, nor are any of us single-issue people.
The economic and environmental problems we face happen on a national level. Nothing the Maine government, or any state government, pursues will do much to change that. Asking the state government to address our concerns does not take away from time spent addressing the economy, or the environment.
Finally, no one here is making any choice to be gay or to want to marry someone of the same sex - with the one possible exception of bisexuals. But many of us are not bisexual. We are human beings, just like you, and all we are trying to do is gain all the same rights for ourselves that everyone else already has - to choose to be married, or choose to remain single.
I don't want to see a putsch of anti-gay progressives or moderates, heck, I don't even want the anti-gay conservatives to go away. We all deserve to be at the table - we are all equal under the law, and before the eyes of the lord. I wish we could have more of a discussion about how exactly you feel threatened by us living out our lives as God intended them, and why it is so important to you to keep our relationships under wraps, and penalize them. I would like to have a discussion about why marriage is so important to us - how everyone in our lives tells us from the moment we can understand them that marriage is the ultimate goal, how strong that desire is to achieve that goal despite any curveballs life may throw at us. I would love to work something out together - all of us - where we can all feel respected, and we can all move on together with maybe a little less division that what we've seen up until now.
But as long as even progressives tell us it's not even worth listening to us, that our needs and our concerns are so unimportant, that we might as well not even exist because the economy has problems or the environment is a mess... I just don't see how that conversation can even begin. But it has to. For you it's just another wedge issue you'd rather not have to deal with. For us, it's our very lives. And I will never stop fighting for my right to live my life as I see fit. That is the American dream. And I would rather die trying.
Ah Jesus Christ ! I didn't mean to sound a bit too harsh here. I respect people who are gay/lesbian but marriage takes money and since you're still classified as single in most states and federally as far as taxes are concerned, a civil union or cohabiting is good enough.
The people who disrespect same sex people the most turn out to be minorities. I can wear my pantyhose under my shorts in a regular white suburban neighborhood and no one would complain. I can have conversations and nobody would look down at my legs let alone call me "gay" for wearing pantyhose under my shorts. I may encounter some warm smiles from both men and women and some women may bat their eyes at my wearing pantyhose under my shorts but nobody believes I am "gay". A couple of women even made me feel tickled when they told me that my legs look more masculine wearing tights under my shorts. These are all the same folks who are less intolerant of same sex couples. In contrast, I walk into a minority neighborhood dressed like that and I get whistles and cat calls as if I'm a girl. Some of them will shout "gay" and some will throw trash and food at me just for being dressed like that. Now there's where you can detect such intolerance of same sex people.
Personally, I chose to marry a woman. If I wanted to marry a man, I would have proudly undergone a complete sex change to female to the core. I had moments when I almost wanted to do that when I used to fear that I would never find a woman to fall in love with. I know this sounds weird but I'm just trying to explain how I find it too weird to marry a partner that's my sex.
Maybe men should dress like women and women should dress like men. The latter is usually tolerated. Anyway, doing that will ease the fears on gays/lesbians and you won't need government to tell you who you can marry vs who you can't.
You are either trolling or are ignorant at a level that borders on psychosis. I have rarely read a more nonsense-filled post in my life. I'm betting 'troll'. Are you by any chance a sockpuppet of NotAllan?
"You are either trolling or are ignorant at a level that borders on psychosis."
_______________________________________
Stop it! You'll just make him dig even harder-- and NOBODY wants to see THAT.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I hate to say it but you lost your bets. No, I am not NotAllan's sock puppet or for that matter anyone's sock puppet. Exactly, what is it that I wrote that offends you? I will be happy to discuss this and explain why I feel that way and take your response into consideration upon replying.
Look in the mirror. Read your own posts. Stop trying blame to minorities.
Right, I'll blame lack of education for laughing and throwing twinkies at me wearing pantyhose under my shorts.
"After 31 defeats at the ballot box, America's gay community can't rely on the majority to promote their right to marry," says Melissa McEwan.
Here's an analysis of Proposition 8 stated by MIKENYC on November 13, 2008 in the US News forum, which I think bears repeating now:
"The numbers are simple. California had 37.7 million citizens as of June 2007. Proposition 8 received 5,782,670 or a little over 15% of the entire population. Through the various rules established by the state, not all citizens are allowed to vote, but they are still citizens of California and as such deserving of all the rights and protections of the state. Consequently 85% of the residents of California must live by whatever 15% decides. It is the court system that protects the 85% from the rule of the 15%. When that few people can overrule the Supreme Court, then we have close to a dictatorship of a tiny percentage of the population. What happens when the 15% decide to eliminate other rights? The Supreme Court will be of little use if they allow this to stand."
It would be easy for someone to restate this, plugging in the Maine figures.
The moral of this story is that "the majority" can't be trusted to determine basic human rights.
The moral of this story is that "the majority" can't be trusted to determine basic human rights.
------------------------------------
Nor should they be allowed to.
We would do well to have a constitutional amendment to the effect that any attempt to limit the rights of one group also limits the rights of the proposing group, and give it teeth (for a change!)
In any given democracy we are bound to run into something the majority won't agree on. Try approaching the issue on a different note. Marriage is about money and property. Why would same sex couples suddenly care so much for it. Exactly what was the question posed to the voters and how was it framed and worded? Some ballots also give up to a page describing more about the vote on the ballot. I would have to see the question word for word to determine what could possibly cause people to actually vote that way.
What are you going to do when someone decides that abortion "limits the rights" of the unborn and proposes banning it?
_______________________________________________________
Laugh in their face.
· Yr Obd't Servant
camus13
Leaving it in the hands of the public.......Plato said years ago it won't work......again he was proven right.
No, honestly, that's Hamiltonian rubbish. It's like claiming people are incompetent at playing poker while ignoring the stacked deck they were forced to play against.
Give people full and fair access to ALL the information, no crazy propaganda, and the outcome will usually be an increase in fairness. The reality is that most --on the order of 80%-- ordinary people have 'fairness' at the top of their value list. It's so important that they'll actually sacrifice to punish someone for being unfair. They nearly always accept a slight self-interested skew, but not more than slight. This has been demonstrated experimentally and cuts across all cultures.
Wouldn`t it have been great if we were all just unisex? Then we could have all been happy just hanging out with anyone. It is too bad that we have both sexes to cause all these serious problems. All this stuff about marriage and raising families could be done with and we could enjoy life just thinking of ourselves.
I dunno. Somehow, I think it would get boring all too soon. I mean let's face it. There are certain qualities of women that attract men and certain qualities of men that attract women. I know I married for love more than money or property. Maybe a better idea is to remove money and property from the definition of marriage and just redefine it in terms of love and being able to work things out together in life as lifetime partners. Who cares if one is homosexual or heterosexual, right?
Speaking of unisex, making what we wear more unisex might actually help. I know this may sound silly but women can wear most anything men can wear but men can't wear skirts, tights under their shorts or kilts, or stylish boots without being called "gay" by some. There is some progress on breaking away the idea that only women can wear tights in Europe and it's coming slow in the USA.
This is a perfect example of government meddling with people's personal affairs. Where the hell are libertarians when you need them on this?
Until the end of this article, the article was flawed. Writing against what the majority of the people decided ignores the actual culprits behind the defeat. We may not like what they decided but it was their personal right to choose as the ballot gave them the right to do just that. The comments so far don't get it either. Between the anti-same sex forces and the same sex forces, tolerance is lost. It is ok for a gay or lesbian to not support the idea of being heterosexual personally. Likewise, it is equally ok for a straight male or female to not support the idea of being a homosexual personally. What is wrong is trying to tell someone else to be the opposite of what they are and call it tolerance. We cannot count on the courts to make laws. The job of courts is to interpret the laws and make judgments based on those interpretations. I will explain how DOMA makes court cases for same sex cases difficult for the same sex side to win shortly. First, however, we need to revisit the concept of marriage in general. Making the case for redefining marriage is the best way to settle this issue once and for all rather than drag it out endlessly.
The issue of gay marriage is not as complicated as some would like to think it is. The trick to succeeding is to simply reframe the issue of marriage itself. Should marriage be about power, property ownership, and wealth more than love and respect for each other regardless of their differences? Traditional marriages would say yes. A marriage that is defined beyond materialism and power would say no. We could easily redefine marriage in terms of love, respect, and understanding between two individuals who want to spend their lives together and that shall be no discrimination against both partners being the same sex or the couple consisting of one man and one woman. By redefining marriage in that way, we can remove the restrictions of limiting marriages to heterosexuals only and leave the institution of marriage open to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
The first thing that must be done is to take that argument and convince as many members of Congress to look at marriage beyond materialism and remove the discrimination against homosexuals. It is not difficult to take the conservative argument against Big Government and apply it towards removing DOMA which endorses big government on marriages. Without removing DOMA, nothing that the states or cities try to pass will survive. The author provided a link to the Wiki article stating the definition of DOMA. The federal law has two effects:
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
The first effect does not change anything other than confirming that states have their rights to pass laws discriminating against same sex marriages. Again, the burden of discriminating would lie on the states.
The second effect is exactly what will be used to have the courts overturn almost any state or local law recognizing same sex marriages. This effect is a VIOLATION OF STATES' RIGHTS and as a result, DOMA must be repealed by Congress first. This is exactly why we cannot currently rely on either the courts or state or local laws to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex.
"Between the anti-same sex forces and the same sex forces, tolerance is lost. It is ok for a gay or lesbian to not support the idea of being heterosexual personally. Likewise, it is equally ok for a straight male or female to not support the idea of being a homosexual personally. What is wrong is trying to tell someone else to be the opposite of what they are and call it tolerance."
Between the racists and the anti racist forces, tolerance is lost. It is Ok for someone to support the idea of interracial relationships personally. Likewise, it is equally ok for someone to not support the of interracial relationships personally.
It is Ok for someone to impose laws on OTHER people to prevent white people from having romantic interracial relationships with non-whites.
You're missing the point. I was not talking about racism, a different discrimination. I was talking about what was wrong with the way the fight for declaring the rights of same sex partners to marry was being pursued. In this case, DOMA must first be repealed or reformed to allow for same sex couples to marry. Otherwise no ballot initiatives or state and local laws passed to recognize same sex marriages will stand a good chance of surviving court challenges. DOMA can currently be used against state and local laws passed in favor of recognizing gay marriages legally. The people's vote for or against gay marriage legality was already irrelevant thanks to DOMA.
There is no law forbidding interracial marriages or not recognizing them that I am aware of. Tax wise, they are still regular couples as long as they are within the legal limits. Racial marriages are a different matter altogether but there are no legal hurdles I am aware of compared to same sex marriages.
No, actually, DOMA violates the 'full faith and credit' clause in the Constitution. If we weren't living in a banana republic where the Consitution is 'just a goddamned piece of paper', the people who put together DOMA wouldn't even have got it to the floor of Congress. In a better society, they would also have lost their jobs and pensions for trying it on.
That is an another excellent reason why DOMA must be abolished immediately. Thank you for bringing this other point up. As to the Constitution, I guess amending it looked too difficult for them to carry out for fear of public backlash so they snuck around it.
Yes, there are no laws forbidding interracial relationships NOW. There were laws doing so, not too long ago.
Should those laws be "tolerated" in the name of "tolerance"? Should people who would legally prevent interracial relationships be "tolerated" in the name of "tolerance"?
That is my point.
Redefining marriage as you put it sounds great. I like that road to harmony. That'll have to start once the economic issues are put to rest at least somewhat.