- Home
- Journalists
- Malcolm Lazin
Malcolm Lazin
Malcolm Lazin, is the Founder and Executive Director of Equality Forum, formerly PrideFest America. Mr. Lazin is the recipient of the US Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award and was the Chair of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission. He is a recipient of the National Education Association’s Creative Leadership in Human Rights Award and is a Prime Mover of the Hunt Alternatives Fund. For more information on Equality Forum, call 215-732-3378 or visit www.equalityforum.com.
Articles by this Journalist
Who Counts in an American Democracy?
- By Malcolm Lazin
- Published 07/25/2008
- Commentary & Opinion- Op-Ed
- Unrated
On July 17, 2008, the Census Bureau confirmed that it will exclude same-sex couples married in Massachusetts and California from its tabulation and will reclassify these lawful marriages as unmarried. According to the agency’s director Steven H. Murdock, the bureau is governed by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to protect heterosexual marriage from the perceived threat of same-sex unions. The statute provides that no state shall be required to give effect to same-sex marriage in another state and defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman.
Under DOMA, states do not need to recognize a same-sex couple married in another state. DOMA mandates that all federal departments and agencies exclusively interpret marriage as heterosexual.
Marriage is a civil contract authorized in all 50 states. The federal government promotes marriage by providing 1,138 federal marital protections and benefits. Those include taxation and pension benefits, inheritance and immigration rights, among others. DOMA prohibits same-sex couples lawfully married under state law from receiving the 1,138 federal marital provisions including social security benefits to same-sex survivors and their children.
Please continue to Full Story
Majority Tyranny v. Minority Rights
- By Malcolm Lazin
- Published 11/16/2008
- Commentary & Opinion- Op-Ed
- Unrated
A great paradox of the 2008 federal election in which the first African American was elected President is that three states passed referenda to amend their respective state constitutions to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and Arkansas passed a referendum to preclude unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children.
|
Eighteen states allow their constitutions to be amended through ballot initiatives without consent by the legislative and/or executive branches. The remaining states enable their constitutions to be amended by the public after legislative and/or executive action. Some states require majority approval and others mandate voter approval ranging from 60% to two thirds approval. The same-sex ballot initiatives exemplify the danger posed to all citizens by stripping away of fundamental rights from marginalized citizens and the importance of the judiciary in protecting civil liberties. Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. In 1961, 16 states not including Hawaii had laws that made miscegenation a crime and branded the offspring of a black and white couple as a bastard. In 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional because they violated the due process clause and equal protection of the 14th Amendment. Given prevalent racial animosity in 1961, had racists tried to amend state constitutions to prohibit miscegenation, those ballot initiatives would have been overwhelmingly passed in most states. |
|
During World War II, had xenophobes tried to amend state constitutions to prohibit the civil liberties of Japanese Americans, they would have been easily approved. State amendments to limit civil liberties could have been readily enacted against immigrants such as the Irish, Chinese and Jews, among others. A democracy is measured by how it protects minority religious, political, racial and other individual differences. The US Supreme Court has addressed these concerns in various decisions including Loving v. Virginia and Romer v. Evans. |
Please continue to Full Story

























