DOJ and Gay Rights

The DOJ recently issued an edict that its gay employees would be treated the same in their marriages as straight couples for the purpose of acknowledging benefits and allowing legal proceedings to be filed by gay couples.  In theory, it's a laudable decision, one that would seem to be in line with the declaration that all men are created equal.  Conceptually, I have no truck with it.

But it raises some interesting issues that will likely be contested on the slippery slope that has now been created.

First of all, what about those states that don't recognize gay marriage, or have laws that disavow the marriage of people from the same sex?  Are those states supposed to overlook their own laws and allow for gay DOJ employees to have superior benefits than non-DOJ gays?

Second, doesn't this create a class of gays with superior rights to other gay federal workers?  What about gay military personnel, gay legislators or gays elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy that aren't part of DOJ?  How does this promote equality?

Third, what about common law marriage, both gay and straight?  Are we to assume that common law marriages, which are recognized in many states -- fifteen, plus the District of Columbia -- are somehow inferior and therefore not entitled to the same protection as gay marriage?

Fourth, the announcement stated that married gays can now file bankruptcy petitions as a married couple. Under the Bankruptcy Code, the exemption allows certain states to opt out and use state exemptions instead of federal exemptions.  Will some of these states, assuming that they are resistant to recognizing gay marriage, be forced to accept gay couples using their exemptions even though they are not legally allowed to marry in the state?

Fifth, is this constitutional?

Personally, I'm not opposed to the concept of civil unions for gays.  I still believe that marriage should be reserved for people of the opposite sex.  But on this issue, I'm torn.  Gays are just as competent -- or incompetent -- of marriage as are straight people.  I don't think there should be discrimination regarding employment, legal benefits or anything else.  But to declare this ad hoc approach to gay rights certainly creates as many problems as it's attempting to solve.  It's probably being hailed as a progressive step in the right direction, which it is in theory, but it creates more divisions than it probably intends.

Given how this administration views the rule of law, I wouldn't expect anything less.  I'm glad for gays that their rights are now more visibly acknowledged.  I just think there's a better way to do this than by fiat.

Perhaps when Fiat bought Chrysler it should have announced that it had also bought the U.S. government.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles