DOMA: Tamed and Buried
Published in La Opinión
(Spain) on 27 June 2013
by Humberto Caspa (link to original)
(Spain) on 27 June 2013
by Humberto Caspa (link to original)
Translated from
by Joanna Charalambous.
Edited by Jane Lee.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) rose in September 1996 under Bill Clinton’s government, had a stormy life for a few years through three administrations and this week succumbed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Beyond arguing the menacing morals of the new law, I believe that it is necessary to analyze the real consequences for the American community, especially in that population which was historically discriminated against by people, the law and society.
For starters, once the federal government states explicit recognition of same-sex marriages, both of the individuals who make up this union will have the same rights as any other conventional marriage between a man and a woman. In the case of Edith Windsor, who challenged the constitutionality of DOMA after being fined $350,000 in taxes on property she inherited from her late partner, it will now be the American tax collector who will return money to her — that is, if she has been paying this money.
Additionally, even though their marriages are recognized as legitimate ones in some states, the federal government requires same-sex couples to fill out tax forms separately — that is to say, as singles. Obviously, this stirred up strong economic losses for every gay or lesbian because they couldn't fight common expenses before the government, let alone argue for a specific loan for the support of one or more dependents jointly.
On the other hand, in the field of migration, gays or lesbians had no right to ask the federal government to grant them a quota so that their partner could legally migrate from another country. In the event that an American knew another person of the same sex and the two eventually married in a country where this type of union was allowed, the American government wouldn't believe the marital document in a formal migratory application.
In the field of Social Security and Medicare, there will also be an immediate impact. In conventional marriages, the federal government allows monthly fees to be earned from Social Security when one partner passes away. In the case of a gay person’s death, their accumulated Social Security money remained in the system; their partner had no right to collect it.
Moreover, from today onward, gays and lesbians — especially those who have a civil partnership — will be able to ask for special permits from their workplace to take time off in the case of the ill health of their partners. Now the law supports them and employers don’t have the right to revoke their permits or fine them for taking a leave of absence.
In this way, the change with the abolition of DOMA is striking. Nevertheless, the most important thing is that the political and social system of the United States is each time less discriminatory than before.
Beyond arguing the menacing morals of the new law, I believe that it is necessary to analyze the real consequences for the American community, especially in that population which was historically discriminated against by people, the law and society.
For starters, once the federal government states explicit recognition of same-sex marriages, both of the individuals who make up this union will have the same rights as any other conventional marriage between a man and a woman. In the case of Edith Windsor, who challenged the constitutionality of DOMA after being fined $350,000 in taxes on property she inherited from her late partner, it will now be the American tax collector who will return money to her — that is, if she has been paying this money.
Additionally, even though their marriages are recognized as legitimate ones in some states, the federal government requires same-sex couples to fill out tax forms separately — that is to say, as singles. Obviously, this stirred up strong economic losses for every gay or lesbian because they couldn't fight common expenses before the government, let alone argue for a specific loan for the support of one or more dependents jointly.
On the other hand, in the field of migration, gays or lesbians had no right to ask the federal government to grant them a quota so that their partner could legally migrate from another country. In the event that an American knew another person of the same sex and the two eventually married in a country where this type of union was allowed, the American government wouldn't believe the marital document in a formal migratory application.
In the field of Social Security and Medicare, there will also be an immediate impact. In conventional marriages, the federal government allows monthly fees to be earned from Social Security when one partner passes away. In the case of a gay person’s death, their accumulated Social Security money remained in the system; their partner had no right to collect it.
Moreover, from today onward, gays and lesbians — especially those who have a civil partnership — will be able to ask for special permits from their workplace to take time off in the case of the ill health of their partners. Now the law supports them and employers don’t have the right to revoke their permits or fine them for taking a leave of absence.
In this way, the change with the abolition of DOMA is striking. Nevertheless, the most important thing is that the political and social system of the United States is each time less discriminatory than before.
Previous article![]( "Kerry, Show Us a Plan")
Next article![]( "Obama Is Laying the Foundations of a Dystopian Future")
