President Obama declared section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, claiming “classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.
DOMA was passed in 1996, shortly before the national election and with rumors that Hawaii might legalize same-sex marriage. The first section merely defines the name of the act, while the second section specifies states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages finalized in other states. These two sections have not been under scrutiny or faced the amount of lawsuits as the third, which defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex.
Over the years, many lawsuits have arisen due to section three of DOMA, with many of them ending in defeat due to the Supreme Court support.
However, with President Obama’s statement about the constitutionality of the section, cases in the future may have different outcomes because the “administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court,” according to Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement. Yet, the declaration does not repeal DOMA — it just signifies its constitutionality.
Nutrition sophomore Maura Adams said the act was unconstitutional, and it should be repealed.
“I believe a lot in the separation of church and state,” Adams said. “It says in the Bible that (it is wrong), but what it says in the Bible shouldn’t make laws.”
Adams isn’t alone.
Berkeley Johnson, the chaplain for the Canterbury Club, an “Episcopal, LGBT inclusive and theologically progressive college and young adult ministry” according to its website, said he also believes in the separation between church and state, especially with the history of America.
“I think it’s the basis … for which we (are) able to flourish as a country,” Johnson said. “Our government has flourished because it’s free from tyranny of religion, and religions have flourished and prospered here because they’re free from any oppressive government control. The trouble with laws like this is that they seem to blur that distinction.”
As a “man of faith,” Johnson said the act was passed based on moral and religious reasons rather than on lawful reasons. In fact, Johnson said if another religious group besides Christianity came into power and passed laws based on their religious morals, the “conservative Christians” would be the first to cry for separation of church and state, though they may not do that for their own moral agendas.
“From my perspective, conservative Christians really have it wrong to pass an act of legislation based on their religious convictions,” Johnson said.
Kerry Pacheco, a student at Cuesta Community College, said though she supports same-sex marriage, she understood the other point of view.
“I can see how people, for them, (think) it’s wrong,” Pacheco said.
Pacheco also said because marriage has been between a man and a woman for so long, same-sex marriage may be a culture shock to more traditional individuals.
Johnson also felt the stigma. Individuals might struggle with the thought of same-sex marriage because of the way they were taught, he said.
“I don’t think it’s such a difficult issue for the younger generation, but there are people, again, who are very, very entrenched who have been taught that this is an … abomination,” Johnson said.
However, Johnson said he felt people are always evolving in their way of thinking about same-sex marriage, along with other past issues such as civil rights, women’s suffrage and slavery. In fact, Johnson said scripture was used as rationales for many of the country’s past social issues.
“In scripture, you have a flat earth; you have slavery being an accepted part of society; you have women as property of their husbands,” Johnson said. “And you have a process of evolution in the Bible, an evolving understanding within the scripture that things change over time, so that it’s very hard to pick these passages out if you’re not using the same standard for other passages.”
Johnson said those who use scripture as evidence against homosexuality, which he called “proof texting,” do not consider the totality or underlying message of the scripture. The Canterbury Club, with the help of To Set Our Hope on Christ released by the Episcopal Church, holds Bible study in order to look at the Bible in a safe place without proof texting and to appreciate it as a total work.
“We don’t take a passage of scripture and pull it out from its original context and use that to exclude and condemn people,” Johnson said. “We have to look at the totality of the scripture and look for those overarching themes.”
With that, Pacheco said that though she understood the other point of view against same-sex marriage, she felt America must evolve and learn to accept same-sex marriages just as it has accepted many diverse issues before.
“We’re melting pots,” Pacheco said. “So, why isn’t that a part of the pot?”
Johnson also said, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, history evolves toward acceptance, though it may be a struggle.
“The arc of history bends toward justice, so we are continually becoming a more just society,” Johnson said.