Gay Bigamy Now!
A reader makes an excellent point:One thing that struck me about the DOJ’s argument that DOMA does not violate the equal protection clause since homosexuals are still able to marry people of the opposite sex, is that this ignores the existence of same-sex marriage on the state level. If two women get married in Iowa, they can no longer enter into opposite-sex marriages, even though they still don’t have federal recognition.So right now, there exist a specific class of people (those who are married to a person of the same sex) who are totally excluded from federal marriage benefits.
Yes. That would be me and my husband. And we may be forced to separate as a result.
So . . . absent the right to marry the man he loves, Andrew would marry a chick in order to get “federal marriage benefits”? Really? What benefits are those, exactly? The right to pass on half his Social Security check some decades hence to some random woman he’s not in love with?
Why would he want to do that?
The only other benefits that come to mind for someone who isn’t a military retiree, disabled veteran, or the like — which Andrew isn’t — are the right to leave property without a will and deathbed hospital visitation. The first of those is a matter for the states and the second a matter of hospital policy; both are easily remedied. But even if we grant artistic license here, I’m not sure what a sham marriage to an unspecified woman would accomplish. I suppose having someone visit you in the hospital is better than no one; but it’s hardly the same as having your life’s partner there.
And this has them seriously considering abandoning their marriage?
Being unable to form a legal union with the person you love and/or being denied the benefits that traditional marriages convey is a legitimate gripe. I’m not sure, however, that the fact that being legally married — with all attendant benefits — to that person in one’s state denies one the right to also be married to someone one doesn’t wish to marry is a substantial additional burden.