Previously, if a service member married a same sex partner in a state where such marriage is legal, DADT greased the skids for a slick ticket to a discharge.
Now, gay and lesbian service members can, presumably, marry where it is legal.
Fashionable libertarians like Bob Barr argue states should be able to allow same-sex marriage if they want. They argue for repeal of that clause of DOMA.
But they get all squirmy and want to talk about football when you ask them about repeal of the other clause of DOMA.
That's the one that denies gays access to federal benefits. DOMA converts like Barr don't talk about that bit. They like taking credit for being open-minded because letting states allow same-sex marriage is basically meaningless when it comes to anything financial. Just ask the survivor of Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts. Legally married in that state, the congressman's partner applied for the pension survivors of members of Congress are entitled to.
Then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert round-filed that request in no time flat. Had the petitioner been a person of the opposite gender, Coach Hastert would have rubber-stamped it in no time flat.
Let's assume a gay soldier in Afghanistan falls in love with a gay Canadian soldier he's serving alongside.
DOMA will prevent him from being able to bring his partner home to America, assuming they aren't blown up before that becomes an issue.
Let's assume a gay soldier marries in a state where it's legal. Under DOMA- assuming the Pentagon doesn't pull a bait-and-switch on access to service member benefits- the service member will get taxed for the value of any benefits his/her partner accesses. The married woman next in the checkout line at the PX will not be so burdened.
This is the ultimate question for a democracy: how does the majority justify parsing the rights they claim for themselves? How do you decide your neighbor- who mows his yard and puts out the trash just like you do- is somehow less than you in the eyes of the law?
Why do you get to fetishize war service and then turn around and deny- or tax extra for- benefits veterans are entitled to if they are gay? Especially if they went and fought and you didn't?
"Equality" only has one meaning. It's not subject to fractionating. America's already been through that with African-Americans.
It didn't work.
But opponents of DADT- and marriage equality- shine up the old arguments for another run around the track. "Now isn't the time." "People aren't ready."
Or the classic John McCain "I haven't a molecule of principle left in me" argument- it'll be bad for the economy.
No comments:
Post a Comment