Major Strides for Marriage Equality

Last week, President Obama determined that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law enacted in 1996 that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional. Although Obama opposes same-sex marriage, the president has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the law in court.  His explanation is given in a statement by the Attorney General:

Given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.

Section 3 of DOMA defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

While determined unconstitutional by the president, the act will still be enforced unless and until Congress repeals it or if a court delivers a “definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.” This may come sooner rather than later based on a report by the Huffington Post that Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler and “quite a few co-sponsors” are planning to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA.

In addition to President Obama’s shifting views, on Thursday, the Maryland State Senate voted in favor of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which grants same-sex couples in the state legal marriage recognition, while protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle marriage how they see fit.  The bill is expected to make its way to the House Committee this week.

Meanwhile, about 5,000 miles away in Hawaii, Governor Neil Abercrombie signed a bill legalizing civil unions.  The law, effective January 1, 2012, allows couples, regardless of gender, to form civil unions which provide all the legal rights of marriage.  While civil unions, says Alan Spector, of Equality Hawaii, are not marriage,

They at least provide — on a state level — the concrete, tangible, legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. We still don’t have the social significance and the social meaning of marriage … but getting us to civil unions — psychologically and legally — is such a major barrier to cross.

While we’re thrilled with the strides are being made on behalf of gay rights, we’re disheartened that the issue of marriage equality is still met with strong resistance from politicians and lawmakers across the country.  To read the entire statement about the unconstitutionality of DOMA given by the Attorney General, click here.  To show your support for the President’s decision to determine DOMA unconstitutional, click here.

Hope for Civil Unions in Hawaii (and the rest of America)

According to the Associated Press, Hawaii is the closest it has ever been to legalizing civil unions. Just over 10 years ago, Hawaii was the first state to adopt the nation’s first “defense of marriage” constitutional amendment, which granted the state legislature the power to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples. This amendment, however, leaves open the possibility of civil unions for gay couples. Earlier this month, the state House of Representatives passed the civil union bill, which now awaits approval by the state Senate and possible veto by Republican Governor Linda Lingle. If passed, Hawaii will be the fifth state to legalize civil unions, and the only state in the western United States to do so.

This situation in Hawaii is exemplary of a conversation on civil unions that is being held across America. The issue is reaching a breaking point for many, which speaks to the need for some kind of short-term compromise to avoid long-term disaster.  This weekend, the New York Times published an op-ed piece written by two men who have very different views on same-sex marriage but are in agreement on a possible solution. They propose that Congress grant federal civil unions, which would give same-sex couples all or most of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. In compromise, however, the government would recognize the civil unions only in states which provide religious-conscience exceptions, allowing religious organizations the right to not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The compromise might not be ideal for all, but it at least speaks to the possibility of compromise and provides us with some ideas for the future of same-sex marriage in the United States.