Sunday, April 8, 2012

Defense Of Marriage Act Challenged By Binational Same-Sex Couples

         In Washington, DC there has been an up rise in the number of marriage lawsuits that are challenging DOMA. DOMA which stands for the Defense of Marriage Act says that only a man and a woman joined together as husband and wife by law are able to receive marital rights such as obtaining a green card for a foreign born spouse. In this article the couples that are challenging DOMA are bi-national same-sex couples. Couples that have at least one partner that was not born in America and happens to be gay or lesbian have been rejected on their application for a green card.  In this article the advocacy organization of Immigration Equality has teamed up with these couples to address the discrimination placed on same-sex couples for marital rights. The Immigration Equality organization has recognized that these bi-national same sex couples have no legal options to turn to. The government has denied the request to change DOMA and rejected residency applications. This is what they believe illustrated the unconstitutionality of this law.
          I agree with the Immigrant Equality and the bi-national same-sex couples that this law is unconstitutional. With gay marriages being accepted there really is no use for DOMA in regards to discrimination policies and constitutional laws. There is no use for DOMA because it implements discriminatory actions by rejecting a couple just because they do not consist of a man and a woman. By rejecting bi-national same-sex couples while allowing all marital rights to monogamous couples is showing this discrimination and that the law is being unfair.
       Santiago Ortiz one of the American partners of a foreigner stated that "We're being denied our rights, because we are a family." Although his statement comes from his own interpretation of the situation it brings me to my main point. Which is how religion fits into all this? I believe that religion is the root of this problem. The government from early history has been influenced by religious backgrounds and their teachings. Through this influence they have come to construct a system that enables the Christian ideas that influence them and are enforcing it in public. By giving out such rules the government has set up what they want their country to represent. In this case the government does not want the country to represent a nation that not only allow gay marriages but are open to equality in their acceptance.
           The role that religion plays in this case relies on the implications of a liable marriage which the government (Christian influenced) recognizes. The implications that DOMA puts on marriage is an example of this. This Act in accordance with government recognition of a real marriage and the perks that come along with it resembles the same notions from the book The Mormon Question which discussed Christian ideas on the topic of marriage. The government officials in this book acknowledge their own definition of marriage which was framed by Christian beliefs as being monogamous and between one man and one woman. I believe that the DOMA law is a modern way of restricting newly accepted marriages such as gay and lesbian ones.
         This case acknowledges DOMA’s disregard for same-sex couples as an issue regarded as unconstitutional and liable to be challenged. On the other hand I recognize this article as displaying a matter of which discrimination is produced from the latter of early American history intertwined and influenced by religion. Religion was the starting block for defining marriage and law made it official. Religion has influence DOMA and the law is holding firm in keeping it.

Another article: present case related to DOMA


Emrah K said...

I think this matter is the result of different perspectives that either society is more important than individual or individual is more important than society. Even though some people do not care the future of the country, politicians should care about it. If gay marriage becomes widespread, populations of countries will be imperiled because this is not accordance with the nature of human. However, this is just a choice of individual. I mean it is related to not only religion but also politics of governments. Finally, various reasons may be influential on this issue as well as religious background of the country.

Angela S. said...

Why would populations be imperiled? With modern technology gay couples can have children and even if they couldn't we have children in the adoption systems that desperately need loving parents. Even if that wasn't the case we also have problems with overpopulation so some couples that don't have children isn't necessarily a bad thing for the world.

Emrah K said...

You are right Angela, of course it is possible having children by modern technology. But I mean that it is possible by unnatural ways, it means that gay-lesbian relations are not natural way for humanity. unnatural-techonology is needed. if our fathers and mothers were gay-lesbian, we would not exist. Just I want to say being against to gay-lesbian relations does not need to be religious person.

Angela S. said...

There are plenty of heterosexual couples that also need that technology to reproduce. Will their unions destroy the populations? Or unions like the one I'm in where we could have children, but neither of us want to? Or unions that take place later in life after the woman has passed through menopause?

Tiffany S. said...

I do not understand why same sex married people would be denied the marriage benefits heterosexual couples receive. If the U.S. government is not supposed to favor a religion, then there should be no bans on same sex marriage rights. It is in religion that you find issues with homosexuals. If the government was separate from church and state, then religious beliefs should not be leaking over into what the government says is an allowable union. I know this is an idealistic viewpoint, but I do think this is a valid point. Denying same sex married couples rights, is discriminating against individuals based solely on the fact that mainstream religions says a union like this should not even be allowed.