Standing Up For Morality And The Family Was Necessary On This Occasion.
This is an original essay written by Edward fagan.
Standing up together for a common cause is something that both government and opposition politicians should do more regularly. One occasion when all politicians should have taken this bipartisan approach was following a particular action which occurred in 2013. On this occasion, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a section of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). This section relates to such topics as (for federal purposes) government employees insurance benefits, social security survivors’ benefits and bankruptcy. These laws apply to heterosexual couples only.
The section also relates to immigration, filing of joint tax returns and a scope of other laws. This scope of laws includes protection of (heterosexual only) families of federal officers. It also includes financial aid eligibility laws, and federal ethics laws applying to heterosexual spouses only.
Those seeking to redefine marriage and the family, obviously, would want to have SCOTUS struck down this section of DOMA.
Standing up for DOMA
This bipartisanship was very evident in May 1996 when both government and opposition politicians voted for the same cause. The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed Congress and the Senate by large majorities. This bipartisanship thus contributed to the DOMA being signed into law in September, 1996 by President Bill Clinton.
DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also defines “spouse” as a partner in a legally recognized heterosexual marriage.
Four out of the nine SCOTUS judges voted in favour of upholding Section 3 of the DOMA. Their position is the correct one, and very noteworthy. The other five judges, clearly, misinterpreted part or all of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
All elected office holders who favoured upholding the DOMA should have highlighted the voting position of those four judges. They should have upheld the voting position of those four judges locally and nationally. They then should have considered using that voting position as the rallying cry for their upholding it in practice. This would be a very good case of the ultimate bipartisanship. It would also be a valid case of the end justifying the means.
By Edward Fagan