Comment: DOMA is not just about "states rights"

(See in situ)


DOMA is not just about "states rights"

It also states that the Federal Government will not recognize same-sex marriages. For example, if a man and woman are married, the federal government will not apply inheritance tax to the surviving spouse. If one member of a same-sex marriage (i.e., legally married by that state in which they reside, in a state that allows it) dies, the surviving partner will not have to pay inheritance tax at the state level, but they will get slapped with a big inheritance tax at the federal level.

DOMA was one of two issues where I have had a lot of trouble selling Ron Paul as a candidate. On the one hand, Ron Paul claimed that government should not get involved in marriage; yet he voted in favor of this law which explicitly regulates marriage, and worse yet, at the Federal level - even though Dr. Paul tries to claim that he is a constitutionalist. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government should be defining marriage? To any person arguing against Ron Paul, that vote for DOMA was always something that I would have to concede. If Dr. Paul were truly against government involvement in marriage, he would have ABSTAINED rather than voting for this bill.

By the way, there is a huge difference between demanding employers to provide birth control pills, vs. supporting something like DOMA.