"Skim Milk"

Looking through the New Yorker, I found a lot on the DOMA and Prop 8 cases. There was info on DOMA, Prop 8, and the issue of state or federal government. I found a article that listed a lot of quotes from the justices hosted by the New Yorker which I will use a lot. Though whether it can be called an article is somewhat debatable.

In the actual article, "THE SKIM MILK IN EDITH WINDSOR’S MARRIAGE," it talks about how Edith Windsor is a lesbian widow residing in New York state who, despite her marriage being recognized in New York, was denied spousal estate tax and had to pay 300k because DOMA didn't let the federal government acknowledge her marriage. This is what Justice Ginsburg was referring to when she said,”... two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.” Windsor had a skim milk marriage because she only got a extremely few number of benefits for being married to her wife. Justice Kagan quoting a House report says, “Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” Perhaps what Congress was doing when DOMA was first passed was simply going with the times. I don't know the statistics but I wouldn't be surprised if homosexuality just wasn't that big like it is now. Perhaps it was a rare thing to meet a gay man at the mall. If that’s the case, then it is fair to say that DOMA passing was a understandable thing, not agreeable, but understandable. If the House was voting on passing DOMA today, I highly doubt it would go through. Today, homosexuality is a much more accepted and common thing. Unless you’re highly religious, you wouldn't make a fuss at seeing a gay couple at the mall. For this reason, I think time periods play a role in what legislation is past.

In California, Prop 8 is different only because it was passed by the state therefore also enforced by the state, this is where state v. federal government comes into play. But another view that Justice Kennedy brings into the equation is said like this,”There are some forty thousand children in California, according to the red brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” I think those voices are important. If a child happens to live with daddy and daddy for most of his life and he’s is well cared for and happy. Who gives a damn? The children like their family, why tear them apart? that can be viewed as as pretty screwed up on the government’s part if this was to come to pass.

Now, if the Supreme Court did rule DOMA and call it a state matter, then DOMA was be declared unconstitutional right away, however, Prop 8 wouldn't be, and there lies a problem. It would let states pick whether or not to allow gay marriage . In my opinion, that’s not good enough. This should be a nationwide ruling to allow equality across the board. 

Prop 8 Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is hearing a case on Doma and  prop 8 simultaneously. On the legality of Prop 8 is questionable only because it was voted upon by the citizens of California. Justice Antonin Scalia said, “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?” My answer is, it became unconstitutional when discrimination was declared illegal. Justice Scalia asked this while hearing the defense of Proposition 8 of California which defines marriage as one man and one woman, pretty much a mini Doma. Despite Prop 8 being voted upon by the citizens of California, what they did was technically illegal.To act against any one group because their or beleifs or differences is discrimination and has already been declared unconstitional. By that line of reasoning it should also apply to Doma, but there is 2 different cases regarding each law which both do the same thing. During the hearing it was also said, “The right to get married, the right to have the relationship of marriage is a personal right. it is apart of the right of privacy, association, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If anything, that shows legalization of gay marriage, but that also shows that it should be a state issue rather than a issue of the Supreme Court. That quote pretty much says the first amendment defends gay marriage. if someone wants to marry anyone else, it is a private thing. However for legal purposes, it is regulated and overseen by the government, otherwise no one would get benefits for being married other than “love.”

With the privacy of couples, how does homosexuality affect anyone else’s marriage? how does it affect the concept of marriage? Justice Elena Kegan said, “What harm do you see happening in when and how and what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite sex couples?” The only harm comes through those of strong religious belief. There was a lot of picketers talking about gay marriage being wrong for religious reasons. However, since the separation of church and state, not a single fuck will be given because that cannot have any affect on the decisions of the Supreme Court which is a federal institution. Therefore, Whether or not your belief in homosexuality is wrong only matters in your personal decisions and not to the decisions of others who happen to be in love with someone who is of the same sex.

If this continues like this then either the Supreme court will make the ruling of the legality of gay marriage or decide it to be a state issue. either way, there is no way Doma or Prop 8 can be determined as constitutional.

Works Cited

My works cited is the video posted by The Washington Post. it is also found on The Washington Post Website and is accesible that way.