Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

It's beyond time for same-sex marriage

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size
Loading…

Posted: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:00 am

Living in America in 2013, one would think discrimination would be illegal, but it is not. I am talking about marriage.

Being gay, I am legally denied the right to marry in 38 states, and do not get federal benefits that heterosexual married couples do.

There are multiple benefits that come from marriage. Next-of-kin and survivor benefits are just two of the benefits granted to heterosexual couples. I am not allowed to go into the hospital room if my partner's doctor says only family can enter. Nor would I be granted survivor benefits, given to spouses after the death of their spouse.

In that regard, I am like Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case now being considered by the nation's top justices.

In late March, the Supreme Court drew a crowd of protesters on both sides of the gay marriage issue as the justices heard the case involving the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8. The 2008 voter-approved measure was one of two cases being heard on the subject during the hearings.

Also on the table was the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits legally married same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage benefits.

Having these cases heard at a national level has reignited the same-sex marriage debate.

Similar to thousands of other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals, I am anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court's decision.

With 38 states banning same-sex marriage, it may appear the majority is opposed.

However, the New York Times released a graph based on relevant public polls on same-sex marriage going back to 1988, which shows a steady rise of those in favor of allowing same-sex marriage.

In 1996, one public Gallup poll showed that 68 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage; that number dropped to 48 percent in 2012.

The legal benefits of marriage are what we are fighting for.

The claim that we are anti-religious and are corrupting the sanctity of marriage is false.

People thought the same about interracial marriage in the 1960s. That debate led to the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia case, regarding Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other.

The court decided it was unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage.

Were some Americans upset at the decision? Yes.

Was it the right thing to do? Yes.

We are now at that point with same-sex marriage.

Recent Supreme Court discussion was illuminating.

"Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

She was addressing Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Prop. 8 during hearings heard in late March.

"Your Honor, I cannot," Cooper responded.

Cooper defended marriage by claiming the only reason for it was to make babies.

Justice Elena Kagan also questioned that defense.

"If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage, so why is that different?"

Cooper could not answer this, either.

The defense of DOMA was that the law keeps marriage equal nationwide.

Yet, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought otherwise.

"You are really diminishing what the state has said is marriage," Ginsburg said to DOMA defense attorney Paul Clement. "There's two kinds of marriage, there's full marriage and then there's sort of skim milk marriage."

Clement argued that it is legal for the federal government to have a say in federal benefits related to marriage, and they will have a different definition of marriage as well.

As I am not a second-class citizen, do not give me a second-class marriage. Allow me the right to marry my partner, if I want to. Give me the right to be there for him if he is in the hospital.

Legalize same-sex marriage and repeal DOMA — it is that simple.

Brian Ratto of Lodi is a student at San Joaquin Delta College and a newsroom intern at the News-Sentinel.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

3 comments:

  • Sirah Morris posted at 11:02 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    siraMORRIS Posts: 1

    Clinton said that he signed the DOMA law in 1996 because, at the time, not doing so would have opened the door for anti-gay legislation that would have been far harder to undo. It was, the former president said, a move to abort a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages entirely. I read it here: Same Sex Marriage

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:14 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Just great, Mr. Jacobs. Please let us know when the US became a theocracy and anyone had to follow YOUR rules.

    Try moving to Iran if you enjoy religious oversight of all of your activities.

    This is a great example of a man with religious blinders on. Guess what?

    Jesus wouldn't agree with you if he came to your door today and asked why you were letting bigotry obscure your views.

     
  • Robert Jacobs posted at 2:45 pm on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    Robert Jacobs Posts: 298

    I don't give a darn if you are allowed to enter you partners hospital room. I don't care if you are included in making decisions for your partners. I don't really don't care what you do concerning someone you love.

    What I do care about is the fact that the bible (for you people who confess to be Christians and anyone else who proclaims God) says if you practice these things you are already condemned!

    Those of you who would deny this makes him a liar, and seals your fate for all eternity!

    Good luck with that....

     

Recent Comments

Posted 4 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Editorial: Let’s take a deeper look at …

This has been a real silly argument. Hot, uncomfortable bleachers is not a tradition worth maintaining if you can't upgrade an already up…

More...

Posted 4 hours ago by Simon Birch.

article: Letter: The path to Benghazi

Thomas: I was doing some work in the comments admin. Nothing sinister, although I'm sure someone will accuse me of conspiring with the Musl…

More...

Posted 4 hours ago by Jerome Kinderman.

article: Letter: Questions for Obama supporters

Oh sure, it was real alright. But if one looks at the polls right now regarding Barack Hussein Obama's performance, me things there's a tad…

More...

Posted 6 hours ago by stan taves.

article: Letter: Questions for Obama supporters

The load that the left bought -- but have yet to pay for -- is real. It's really real; but until you actually have to pay for it, you won't…

More...

Posted 7 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

Hey, you're right about something! That picture didn't change my mind one bit.

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists