DOMA Debate: Ethical and Constitutional Arguments - Essay Sample

Introduction

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has attracted a lot of debate in recent years. DOMA has been on the limelight following the increase of the activists of lobby groups who wanted the law to be reexamined for its negative implications on the rights of citizens. Most of the discussions of the law have concentrated on the ethical and constitutional aspects of the act and how such elements affect the citizens across all states. The ethical and constitutional arguments presented strong views that both opponents and proponents made to support their positions.

Ethical Arguments

Proponents' Arguments

One of the relevant ethical arguments that were advanced by supporters of DOMA is the idea to protect families from the threat of relationships that do not result in procreation. The central aspect of this view is that perpetuation of humanity through reproduction would be endangered if the family, as known traditionally, is not protected by law (Franke-Ruta, 2013). The proponents held that DOMA is the perfect avenue through which family is safeguarded, and defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was ideal in promoting heterogeneous unions. This would protect life against the dangers of pro-choice individuals. The proposition was meant to counter the rise in same-sex marriage across the United States, considering that the majority of the states recognized gay marriages in their policies and laws.

The pro-family group extended their argument that the United States risks failing to create the required human capital for sustainable economic growth and development. This was pegged on the case that unions that are not of people of the opposite are not capable of raising children except through adoption. Such practice, this group contended, risked the ability of the American population to produce the labor required for the economy to thrive for the best of all Americans. Thus, they saw the presence of DOMA as a vital pillar of the US economy and the prosperity of all citizens.

Opponents' Arguments

The category of people that challenged the provisions of DOMA on ethical grounds argued that it was immoral to deny same-sex couples the rights that are enjoyed by individuals in heterosexual legal unions. The moral question, according to this side, is whether it is right to treat a specific minority group with dislike or fear based on the moral principles of the minority. At the heart of the question is whether treating people in gay marriages in a way that gives heterosexual couples an advantage over others in society is not right. This implied that denying homosexuals the rights that are available to heterosexual couples causes harm to some people in society, and therefore, is not the appropriate way to treat others (Franke-Ruta, 2013). Ethical principles, in their view, must treat other people like fellow human beings, which includes respecting the feelings and choices of those that they disagree with. Overall, DOMA lacked a humane heart hence unethical.

My View

On the aspect of ethics, the proponents of DOMA should have prevailed. The reason for choosing this position is anchored on the idea that ethics reflects the views of the majority of people. It is what most people in society consider as right, and these practices have been passed on from generation to another. Defending heterosexual marriages in line with the norms and traditions of most people in society, as it is regarded as the pillar of humanity perpetuation. Although their position may be considered to be unfair to gay couples, it is the view that is held by most people in society. In any case, there can be no situation that will be fair to everybody based on the norms and traditions of a given society, and this may not be necessarily embedded in law.

Constitutional Arguments

Proponents Views

Proponents of DOMA argued that the act did not violate the constitution because it set standards on the people who should access federal benefits. By stating that marriage was only a legal union between two people of the opposite sex, the supporters of the law argued that striking down the law would make people in other unions such as polygamous unions to find their way to society. They also argued that the burden associated with being in male-female unions is significant, and providing similar federal benefits to gay couples may amount to discrimination in certain circumstances. Moreover, the proponents argued that federal law only set forth the essential standards which did not restrict states to accept variants of marriage that conform to their definitions(Walen, 1997). As such, the states could make their own laws depending on the wishes of the people, including how to deal with the benefits of the gay couples.

Opponents Positions

The parties who opposed DOMA based their argument on the idea that the law violated fundamental rights of the citizens of the United States and also went against the principles of federalism as set out in the US constitution. DOMA denied same-sex couples the opportunity to benefit from federal programs, including the joint filing of tax returns, insurance benefits for employees working for the government, bankruptcy, and social security survivors' benefits, among others (Walen, 1997). The opponents felt that defining marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman limited the rights of citizens to choose whom to marry. Thus, they promoted the view that providing federal benefits only to heterosexual couples not violated the rights for self-consciousness among the gay people but also discriminated against persons of homosexual unions in states that already allowed same-sex marriages.

My View

In 2015, the US Supreme Court overruled section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. This means that opponents prevailed. In my view, this was the correct because DOMA not only violated the 14th Amendment but also threatened the spirit of federalism. The 14th Amendment offers equal protection to all citizens regardless of any categorization. For this reason, the view that DOMA discriminatory against gay people is valid. Similarly, the law went against the intentions of the states. By 2015, more than 30 states had legalized gay unions. The purpose of these states was to protect the rights of their citizens. As such, the DOMA provisions sought to undermine the laws of the states since federal law supersedes state laws. It interfered with the democratic affairs of states; hence, it fitted that the opponents of the law prevailed as it enhanced our adherence to the constitution.

References

Franke-Ruta, G. (2013). The Jaw-dropping reason Congress drafted DOMA: 'Moral disapproval of homosexuality'. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-jaw-dropping-reason-congress-drafted-doma-moral-disapproval-of-homosexuality/274418/

Walen, A. (1997). The "Defense of Marriage Act" and authoritarian morality. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 5(2), 1-25. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol5/iss2/5

Assignment Two

"Purdue Pharma, Maker of OxyContin, Files for Bankruptcy"

The article appears in the New York Times newspaper on September 15th, 2019. Jan Hoffman and Mary Williams Walsh have written it. The authors discuss the decision of Purdue Pharma to file bankruptcy protection in line with the laws that protect a business organization from further losses if the market conditions are unfavorable to the business. The main focus of Hoffman and Walsh is the motivation behind the company filing for bankruptcy. The authors reveal that the decision intends to escape compensation claims. The article, however, does not show the general market conditions, which may have played a role in reducing the profits of the company, which necessitated the board of directors' decision. For example, there is no mention of the role of demand in the declining earnings of the company. Demand for a company's goods is an essential factor that determines its ability to sustain operations in the market. Thus, its exclusion from the article creates the authors assumed that escaping lawsuits was the only motivation for filing for bankruptcy protection. Regardless of the strength of the claim of the authors, the role of market forces in making a business bankrupt cannot be ignored.

The issue covered in the article delves into the systematic problem of drug abuse in the United States. Purdue Pharma played a critical part in encouraging the excessive use of painkiller drugs. The overreliance on these painkillers has resulted in the current opioid crisis in America. Families and individuals have lost their lives and livelihoods due to opioid use. The article, therefore, discussed a systematic issue in the US society requiring urgent attention. It is also raises the ethical question of whether the interest of millions affected by the crisis get justice when a company seeks to file for protection when it has played an enormous role in the destruction of the lives and livelihoods of people since the wealthy owners will continue to benefit from the billions they made from the company.

References

Hoffman, J., & Walsh, M. W. (2019). Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, files for bankruptcy. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/health/purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-opioids-settlement.html