As I stated in my Dec. 30 letter to The Spokesman-Review, homosexuals and heterosexuals were treated equally under the Defense of Marriage Act. The law as it was passed in 1996 didn’t force or prevent marital status for either a homosexual or heterosexual. The choice of marrying the opposite sex was equal.
That portion of DOMA just struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court only codified marriage as it has always been defined in Western society before any state of this union determined a new definition. DOMA was legitimately established as the law of the land. Once again, our Justice Department chose not to uphold the law and challenge state definitions in opposition to DOMA. Now, the Supreme Court is complicit.
That said, there may be a legitimate and rational argument that unmarried individuals are not given equal status as married people by the federal government, and are taxed unequally because of that status. In that case, how does the federal government justify its use of income as a means to establish unequal status of citizens, who are treated unequally under progressive taxation?
If our federal government isn’t going to be just and rational, it should at least be consistent.