http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/12/obamas-next-move Comments On: Obama's Next Move by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:00:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
There are two ways of looking at this. One: that it doesn't actually cost more to extend this benefit to same-sex couples, because had they been in marriages to people of the opposite sex, the federal government would still be obligated to pay the benefit.

The second way of looking at this is that paying a solitary person who had been married (of any gendered relationship) more Social Security benefits than a single person who had not been married is both discriminatory to single unmarried people, as well as an archaic throwback to a time when women were expected to not work and giving them the Social Security payments due to their deceased husbands was the only way to keep them out of poverty.

In my view, in light of the looming insolvency of Social Security, it would be most fair to give each person of a certain age the exact same amount of Social Security, regardless of their prior income, sexual orientation, or marital status, and to discontinue a person's Social Security payments entirely upon their death.

This would eliminate any financial incentive the federal government has to support DOMA.

In addition, it seems obvious to me that the income cap should be eliminated, and all income $106,800 should be taxed to fund Social Security.
Posted by Diana]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:17:25 -0700 The Stranger I posted this in response to a different post from a few days ago. I'll re-post here because your comment is pretty similar to the one that I originally responded to.

I agree with you. There's so much blurring of the lines between the religious, social and legal components of marriage that we would be well served by separating and clarifying them. My wife and I eloped a couple of months ago in a religion-free ceremony. Neither of us are devoutly religious or Christian, so when we hear Christian conservatives getting all exercised about how marriage is sacred to God it just falls on deaf ears. Let the religious wackos have their "marriage" and the rest of us (gay and straight) can have unions that confer all the rights and responsibilities that marriage does now. After all, my wife and I only got married (after being together for six years) because I got laid off and lost my health insurance.

Posted by memorex]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:19:37 -0700 The Stranger http://www.eqca.org/siteapps/advocacy/Ac…

Send a letter to the president.
Posted by George]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:09:02 -0700 The Stranger
Were it the case that the Department of Justice could abdicate its responsibility any time a U.S. Attorney felt the law in question should be ruled unconstitutional. The politicization of the DoJ under the Bush Administration would pale in comparison to the sort of chicanery that could be accomplished under the actions you propose.

Obama should introduce a bill to repeal DOMA (and DADT), for certain. That doesn't mean, however, that his Department of Justice should set incredibly damaging precedents by ignoring its constitutional duty.
Posted by AnonymousCoward]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:58:47 -0700 The Stranger Posted by deltron2]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:51:31 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Germ]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:44:34 -0700 The Stranger
It seems obvious that people who are denied the right to marriage also feel that they are denied the right to publicly express their love. What we need to do is to change the laws so that marriage is meaningless from a legal perspective. All legal rights stemming from the religious institution of marriage should be revoked - to everybody.

Then we should start from scratch. Create a legal institution which conveys the same rights that were once conveyed via marriage - and allow anybody to apply for it. Gays, straights, even people who are polyamourous can apply for family status under the law.

I think that a big part of what is causing the problem is the word "Marriage" because calling it that seems to invite God into the conversation - and with God come his de facto spokesmen.
Posted by Badger]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:13:22 -0700 The Stranger

Posted by EricaP]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:47:58 -0700 The Stranger Posted by michael strangeways]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:11:57 -0700 The Stranger Posted by stevema14420]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:00:20 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Carollani]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:43:43 -0700 The Stranger Posted by bpinsea]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:43:26 -0700 The Stranger
This is currently in the works, and it doesn't look like something good to me, but I'm just a dumb blonde, not a lawyer. If your Rep. is a cosponsor, I'd be writing a nasty letter right now, if I were you.

H.R.1269
Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Sponsor: Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] (introduced 3/3/2009) Cosponsors (19)
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
3/3/2009--Introduced.

Marriage Protection Act of 2009 - Amends the federal judicial code to deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution, of the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act declaring that no state shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other state.
Posted by Barbara]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:15:02 -0700 The Stranger Posted by the heathen]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:04:43 -0700 The Stranger
"in Boston after defending it California"
Posted by StillNon]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:04:39 -0700 The Stranger
"in Boston after defending it California"
Posted by StillNon]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:04:39 -0700 The Stranger
Obama really is taking a stance here against gay marriage and I can see why it's upsetting to many of you. His words do also suggest though that he's aware that the concept of marriage is in the process of evolving for American people and it could very well change.

Another thing about his position is very clear -- he doesn't view this as a civil rights struggle.


Posted by Racism is bad]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:58:12 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Scalpel]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:50:26 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Bonefish]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:48:40 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Frank Rizzo]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:41:21 -0700 The Stranger Posted by gloomy gus]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:33:17 -0700 The Stranger
Nice! Now we're bringing the racism in!

Amazing how the gays are so quick to align themselves with the civil rights movement and the struggle of blacks.... but then, when things aren't going their way, they turn on them and behave like bigots themselves.

Pot calling the kettle black, much??
Posted by You're as bad as the Mormons]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:29:22 -0700 The Stranger
Oh, and gay couples are more affluent....sorry, nope:
www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press…
Posted by Frank Rizzo]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:22:30 -0700 The Stranger Posted by DJDeeJay]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:17:10 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Rob in Baltimore]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:14:28 -0700 The Stranger