What it comes down to for me is this: DOMA should not exist. Marriage doesn't NEED defending, and it certainly shouldn't be a legal institution. I'm all for any consenting couple of legal adults getting a civil union, and having a marriage within their faith if they want one, but the Defense of Marriage Act offends me with its very existance. And things that were said by the Obama administration in defense of DOMA (see earlier post) point to politics as usual.
And yes, if Jay and I get married someday, I will be perfectly happy to go through a legal application process and some process in some church that will make our families happy (when atheists have religious families!).
And if Adam and Steve get married, I just want to know where they're registered so I can get them a present.
HOLY DIGRESSION BATMAN
The point is, if you allow federal employees to share benefits with same-sex partners WHILE defending DOMA, you are going to confuse me. This is not an issue on which you can play both sides. Either there are civil unions for everyone, or there is legally defined marriage. NOT both.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 07:01 pm (UTC)And yes, if Jay and I get married someday, I will be perfectly happy to go through a legal application process and some process in some church that will make our families happy (when atheists have religious families!).
And if Adam and Steve get married, I just want to know where they're registered so I can get them a present.
HOLY DIGRESSION BATMAN
The point is, if you allow federal employees to share benefits with same-sex partners WHILE defending DOMA, you are going to confuse me. This is not an issue on which you can play both sides. Either there are civil unions for everyone, or there is legally defined marriage. NOT both.