D’Antignac comments on DOMA and a friend
Here’s the second part of what I promised, better known in short as DOMA.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted Sept. 21, 1996, was a United States federal law that allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was ruled unconstitutional in 2013, DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had also effectively barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as “spouses” for purposes of federal laws, or receiving federal marriage benefits.
Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law by Pres. Bill Clinton in September 1996. By defining “spouse” and its related terms to signify a heterosexual couple in a recognized marriage, Section 3 codified non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors’ benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns, as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers, laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.
Clinton – along with key legislators – later advocated for DOMA’s repeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had concluded Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law while it existed, it would no longer defend it in court. In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
On July 18, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which had mounted a defense of Section 3 when the administration declined to, acknowledged that in Windsor “[t]he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality” and said “it no longer will defend that statute.”
The above information comes from Wikipedia.
My take on this subject, and I’ll keep it short. In my 60 plus years, I met and worked with numerous people of the gay community, and I’ve yet to know one who when he or she say they’re your friend, that they didn’t mean it. Throughout my working career, I’ve had occasions when I had to call on others who I thought would help me at the drop of a dime, but after calling several of them and getting excuses, I called a gay co-worker late one night after my car put me down, and he was the only one who didn’t have an excuse to get up in the middle of the night to help me push my car out of harm’s way, and gave me a ride, not only home that night, but made sure I got to work on time the next day. To be honest, I thought he would be the last one who would help me.
Like so many others on our job, I had little or no connection with him, or other gays at work. That one incident gave me a different perspective of him, and them. He wasn’t just a co-worker anymore, he was a friend. He and I had a discussion about being gay, and I asked what made him feel the way he did, and he gave me what I thought was an honest answer, and we never had that discussion again. A few years before I retired, he died. I had no idea the many people who came to his funeral that he knew, I also knew. Did I cry, no, but I felt the loss of a very close friend.
I didn’t tell you this to get anyone to see what I saw in someone that felt he wasn’t what God made him, I told you this so people would look at the gay person as a whole. It’s true some gays act ugly, as with some of us, that’s not gay. Before the night he helped me, I saw him as a gay co-worker, but after that night, I saw him as not only a co-worker but a friend.
Here’s the bottom line. I don’t approve of their lifestyle, but God didn’t say…Clyde, I want you to go throughout the land condemning these people for how they’re living.
I’ll not ask anyone who’s reading this to feel as I do, but before throwing that stone, checkout yourself, or before you try to take the log out of your brothers’, and sisters’ eyes, take that log out of your eye first.
I know those in the religious community are going to have their take on this, and I say have at it. Again, these are my feelings, and opinions, nothing more, and nothing less.
Future Wadley Resident
Sauls still feels police should do more for the citizens
I have been urged by several of your local folks to try once more to convince your police department that you are failing in your police protection.
You made a statement in your letter to the editor that you advised a certain business of Wadley in order to protect the business to put steel bars to the windows. It is my concern, that, is this the way you instruct or protect all your businesses in Wadley, or is this just the way you advise certain ones this way? Are not all people equal?
It has always been my simple understanding that the police department was for the protection of the people in the city, not to provide advice as to the protection to their homes and or business, but for people protection which they are being paid to do.
I am sure you have been in police work for a long time and I admire you for it but I do not believe you are getting the point here. Now I am sure you will say that I am stepping out of character here, but someone has to step forward and make some kind of a difference in the society that we live.
So, what the people of Wadley would like to know is…what part of you ain’t doing your job as police chief don’t you understand? (excuse the English) I am sure as usual you will have some useless words to respond. If this does not change your means of protection then I am afraid there is no hope.
PS. I have seen your officers at work…drinking coffee at Shake Rag.