

U.S., in Shift, Sees Marriage Act as Violation of Gay Rights - akitchell
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?_r=1&hp

======
burgerbrain
I've never really gotten why _any_ marriage needs to be recognized by the
government. Yes, I understand it's for tax purposes, and yes, I think taxing
'married' people any differently than 'single' people is stupid.

~~~
ktsmith
It's a lot more than just tax issues involved. Marriages are contracts that
two people enter into and a number of benefits and responsibilities are
determined by that contract.

~~~
burgerbrain
People enter into contracts every day that the government has nothing to do
with. I'm still not getting why government approval should be involved at all.

~~~
ktsmith
I didn't suggest that the government should be involved I just wanted to point
out that it's a lot more than taxes. The problem is that the government is
already involved and so at the very least we should allow all couples the
ability to enter into this particular contract without discrimination based on
sexual preference.

------
TomOfTTB
I'm for Gay Marriage but I think he loses some serious integrity points for
this because he openly said he was against Gay Marriage during the campaign.

Beyond that the Justice Department's job is (by their own definition)
"enforcement of the law and administration of justice". Not enforcement of the
laws the current administration happens to agree with. The Bush administration
did vaguely the same thing with Microsoft's anti-trust case but at least they
bothered to make it look like they were still enforcing the law with a wildly
insufficient plea deal.

Again my issue isn't with Gay Marriage. I'm just not crazy about sending the
message that it's ok for the President to subvert the law and lie to the
public to do what he thinks is right. Even if I agree with him.

(For those of a liberal bent who can't see past the Gay Marriage issue imagine
a Conservative President deciding not to allow the DOJ to pursue states that
outlaw abortion because he doesn't feel like enforcing federal law)

~~~
metageek
The difference is that he's not failing to enforce federal law; he's failing
to contest the judiciary's finding that DOMA is unconstitutional. If the court
is right, then it's not a law, and he has no obligation to enforce it.

------
mildweed
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, Obama just called BS, now its up
to the courts to decide. Yay separation of powers.

~~~
metageek
No, a court already called BS, and Obama gave up on arguing the point.

------
jdp23
With 13 votes in less than an hour, I'm surprised that this isn't on the front
page. Presumably some penalty is being applied, and I'd like to better
understand this.

For hackers and many other people at startups, marriage is an important way of
getting insurance coverage and other benefits. Until now, the US government
has taken the stance that many people shouldn't be eligible for it. Now, it's
changing the position. Why isn't this relevant?

~~~
jokermatt999
Political articles tend to get flagged, pushing them off the front page.

~~~
zdw
Correct. All of the Giffords shooting in Tucson articles from last month got
flagged off.

