Commentary: Love is a [legal] battlefield.

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”

The above excerpt is from the U.S. Supreme Court (Warren) unanimous opinion on Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 landmark case that abolished the ban on interracial marriage. Over four decades later, we find ourselves fighting once again for the rights that are so “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

Take action: Repealing DOMA (Greenwald)

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish

One of the major misconceptions surrounding civil unions is the belief that they are entitled to the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual marriage. The truth is that even in states that allow for civil unions, the most they can do is offer equality on the state level. Inequality still exists on the federal level:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples . . . A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege. (About.com)

Why is this the case? As Glenn Greenwald notes, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act “explicitly prohibits the Federal Government and all federal agencies from extending any federal marriage-based benefits, privileges and rights to same-sex couple.” That’s the gist of it; to fully understand the act’s implications, please go on and read the rest of his analysis.

Given this, our efforts should not only be placed on repealing Proposition 8, but DOMA as well. And while repealing the entire act is preferable, Greenwald makes the case for focusing on Section 3: “Repealing Section 3 of DOMA — even if one left Section 2 in place — would enable the equal granting of federal rights to same-sex couples without having any effect on the definition of ‘marriage.’“

No, this isn’t exactly what we’re seeking. This does nothing to explicitly legalize same-sex marriage; until then, such couples will be forced to have civil unions. The distinction between that and “marriage” is tantamount to being “separate but equal,” and we shall not settle until full equality is achieved.

But what repealing of Section 3 of DoMA would do is provide a plausible short-term target with very real benefits. Aside from taking away a major talking point on the definition of marriage, this move is one that’s actually advocated by the next President of the United States:

I will be an unapologetic voice for civil rights in the U.S. Senate. For the record, I opposed DOMA [ the Defense of Marriage Act ] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted. (Windy City Media Group)

You might see this as a small step, but its repeal would be a victory for our side and a step towards equality across the nation. It would allow same-sex civil unions to finally receive the same rights and benefits provided to heterosexual marriages.

Let’s hold the President-elect accountable to his promise. Let’s work to end both Proposition 8 and DOMA.