To understand the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Windsor one needs to go back to 1996 when a bi-partisan Congress, Democrats and Republicans, passed a bill and President William Jefferson Clinton signed into law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which for federal law purposes defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Some states,13 by last count, have passed laws defining same-sex unions as marriage, in addition to heterosexual unions. However, same sex-unions under DOMA were not recognized as marriage for federal law purposes. Same-sex couples, for example, could not file federal income tax returns as married.
The Supreme Court in Windsor ruled that the DOMA definition of marriage as that only of one man-one woman was unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court decision did not define marriage; that was still for each state to define. Therefore, same-sex couples joined in states that recognize those unions as marriages are now recognized as marriages for federal law purposes. Most assuredly lawsuits will be filed now seeking to have those state laws declared unconstitutional that recognize only heterosexual unions as marriage.
The Windsor ruling defies reason, and is a travesty of political acquiescence. One does not need the Supreme Court to define what marriage is, or the U.S. Congress or any state legislature or the President or, for that matter, religion or the Bible. All one needs is reason, common sense and a full length mirror. With reason and common sense at hand and standing naked in front of that mirror one merely needs to ask three questions: Am I a male? Am I a female? Why is there a difference?
Society has recognized for thousands of years that heterosexual unions are essential to the propagation of the human race, an absolute necessity to maintaining mankind’s continued existence. Recognition and encouragement of heterosexual unions are therefore society’s primal good. Heterosexual unions, having the capability of producing progeny, constitute with their progeny the structure, the family, essential for the nurturing and development of society’s future members. Acknowledgment by society of that structure establishes society’s basic social block, the foundation for society’s quintessential development.
Society has fostered heterosexual unions as marriage, giving them special consideration and bestowing unique benefits upon these publicly joined unions of one man and one woman, creating the minimum for the human race continuum. For example, some states passed laws that render a spouse incompetent to testify against the other spouse in a criminal proceeding. Divorce laws in many states require a waiting period of several months before an uncontested divorce petition can be finalized. Obviously these laws and others are intended by society to encourage the solidarity and continuity of the one man-one woman union.
Because same-sex unions lack the potential for the primal benefit to society, propagation of the race, society hasn’t given them the recognition or the benefits it has given to marriage. It is counterintuitive to offer the same unique recognition and benefits that serve to encourage and promote the propagation of mankind to same-sex unions which are inherently without reproductive value. Any official statement that does so, whether by way of law or court opinion, defies reason and makes a mockery of society’s foremost need, self- preservation.”
The writer lives in Carolina Shores, N.C.