We’re going state by state with Civil Unions, some include heterosexual couples, some don’t. Currently 8 states allow for civil unions, including domestic partnership and designated beneficiary relationships.

5 U.S. states currently allow gay marriage.

Of course, the federal government sanctions none of these arrangements since the only relationship getting U.S. governmental recognition and support is marriage between a man and a woman.

DOMA was enacted in 1996, 15 years ago, it’s still in force, and it happened very quickly. Here’s its progress:

Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3396 by Robert L. Barr, Jr. on May 7, 1996;
Committee consideration by: Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on the Constitution);
Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67);
Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14);
Signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996.

I still support changing the legal designation from “marriage” to “civil union” for everyone; then DOMA would be moot. But I think this might aggravate people. People like the word “marriage” and want to be married for the legal rights and benefits as well as the social acceptance marriage is seen to afford.

Since DOMA happened so quickly, why not propose a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to resolve this legal conundrum quickly? Of course, DOMA would be in direct contradiction to this proposed amendment, so we would have to get rid of it. Let’s pretend for the moment that it’s gone.

I want this to be simple. We can base our amendment on the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteeing women’s right to vote. Here’s the text of that:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Let’s put forth a Constitutional amendment that says:

“The right of citizens of the United States to marry shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Of course, because of the arguments against LGBT people marrying, we have state civil unions, domestic partnerships, and designated beneficiary laws, but these were created out of attempting to secure the rights and benefits the government grants to the married. To ensure federal recognition of all of these relationship forms, we could include language such as:

“The right of citizens of the United States to marry, or to form the legally equivalent civil unions, domestic partnerships, and/or designated beneficiary relationships, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

This would instantly gain all relationships equal legal status, states could still go about choosing to allow gay marriage or civil unions, people could still challenge DOMA as unconstitutional, etc. As long as the federal government extends all 1,138 rights and benefits that go along with marriage to civil unions, domestic partnerships, and designated beneficiary relationships, this would work. And DOMA doesn’t have to be gone for this to work. It may be in direct contradiction to those states that have approved gay marriage, but those states can adopt language that will allow the extension of marital rights and benefits to their coupled citizenry while legal battles over names for relationships continue.

My point is, the federal government should extend the rights and benefits to the individuals forming relationships under the law now so that our laws are protecting all citizens’ basic civil rights now.

Just do it!