Defense of Marriage Act

Tomorrow, LGBT activists around the country will be gathering in opposition to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA’s author, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, has recently opined that the act should be repealed.  He argues that, while DOMA was originally meant to preserve federalism and states’ rights, it “is not working out as planned.”

First of all, let me congratulate Bob Barr for having the courage to publicly change his mind and share his thoughts.  We need more politicians who are willing to do that.  The law isn’t working out.  But the question that needs to be addressed, is why?

I believe that whenever an issue is framed in terms of natural rights, compromise legislation is doomed to fail.  The Missouri Compromise on slavery was doomed to fail, as was “separate but equal” educational policy.  I love the Constitutional principle of federalism as much as anyone else, but nobody truly believes that the possession of a natural right is dependent on one’s state of residence.  Once the gay rights movement convinces enough people that there exists a natural right to marry the person of one’s choosing, DOMA-style federalism just isn’t going to cut it.

Thoughts on Gay Adoption

You may notice that I have already broken my first New Year’s resolution, to post every day.  I was on a weekend trip to Tampa with my family and had no internet access.  Bite me.    To make up for it, you’ll be getting extra posts during the next few days.

First, I would like to talk about this article in the Tampa Tribune.  Two gay men have been foster parents to two girls for several years.  Due to Florida’s ban on adoption by homosexuals, they will be a foster family indefinitely, or until the ban is overturned- which is looking more and more like a real possibility.

I’ll come right out and say that I think the ban violates the equal protection clause and is therefore unconstitutional.  However, I want to draw particular attention to this paragraph:

The pair tried through Watson’s will to ensure the girls remain with Elsass if something happens to Watson. Because the state does not recognize the men as parents, though, there are no guarantees.

And no perks. Like the $417 monthly stipend available to parents who adopt a child in state custody. And the four-year college scholarships given those children.

Watson and Elsass say they can afford to provide everything for their daughters, but what if they couldn’t?

I think even the staunchest advocate for traditional family structure can see that this is wrong.  These children are no less deserving of a future and an education than those whose foster/adoptive parents are straight.  There is absolutely no evidence that having homosexual parents screws up a child’s development in any way.  Why do we continue denying permanent, loving homes to children who desperately need them?