DOMA Repeal Bill Coming Next Week

[kpete]

Source: The Advocate

DOMA Repeal Bill Coming Next Week

Rep. Jerrold Nadler will introduce legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act next week.
By Kerry Eleveld
JERROLD NADLER X390 (GETTY) | ADVOCATE.COM

The Advocate has learned that Democratic representative Jerrold Nadler of New York will be introducing legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act next Tuesday. A Democratic aide confirmed that a press conference to announce the bill will be held September 15 at 11 a.m. at the House Triangle.

The source said the bill currently has just over 50 cosponsors, but Congressman Nadler’s office has not yet officially circulated a letter to his fellow House members.

Nadler told the Bay Area Reporter in July that the bill would amount to a full repeal of DOMA, including Section 2, which advises states to disregard same-sex marriages that have been legally performed in other states, and Section 3, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

President Barack Obama supported full repeal of the legislation as a candidate and has reiterated that support in the White House. “I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it,” Obama said of the 1996 law during an Oval Office signing ceremony in June.

Read more: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/10/DOMA_Repeal_Bill_Coming_Next_Week/

[polichick]

1. Great news! k&r

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. Wonderful!

Nadler is always on the side of the angels. This is no exception.

Bill Clinton should always be ashamed of himself for DOMA - he set equal rights back decades when he signed that sucker. Shame on him.

It's so fucking unconstitutional, I can't believe it's still on the books.

It's about time........................

[struggle4progress]

7. I screamed when Clinton signed DOMA -- but it passed the House 342:67 and the Senate 85:14

so the majorities were veto-proof

[FreeState]

18. No only that Clinton was told if he did not sign there would be a Constitutional Amendment

and that would have passed. He was stuck in a pad place - it was not all his fault - but at the time an amendment would have passed easily. TO his credit he held it off.

[Le Taz Hot]

48. Uh, no it wouldn't have

It takes YEARS and YEARS to add an Amendment to the Constitution not to mention money and organization. Clinton wanted to throw another bone to the Republicans and he did it via DOMA and before that, DADT. Yes, it WAS his fault and he held nothing off. He threw all of those that believe in equal protection under the law under the bus. Fuck the little weasel.

And to Nadler, kudos to you, dude! This piece of offal should have never been on the books in the first place. While the Democrats have the majority maybe Pelosi and Reid can do SOMETHING to at least partially redeem themselves in their "leadership" positions and help this along.

[JerseygirlCT]

79. I agree - and even if the result was the same -

that DOMA passed - he didn't need to go along with that. That bully pulpit is especially effective when fighting for civil rights.

But he took the cowardly route instead, as you say.

[closeupready]

69. That's a bunch of garbage.

Post-facto pro-Clinton spin. :puke:

[closeupready]

72. Let's not forget, Bill Clinton told John Kerry to speak out in support of the federal marriage amdmt

back in 2004 in order to supposedly win over all these moderates. Hardly the advice of someone who would go to the mat to fight for GLBT protections.

[gtar100]

42. Amazing the priorities of Congress

So out of sync with the very people they claim to represent.

May this piece of republican garbage legislation be one of many that is repealed.

[struggle4progress]

44. The wingnuts flew into orbit when Clinton proposed lifting the ban on gays in the military. Against

that great organized noisy outrage, the natural response ("Hey? What's the big deal?") was completely inadequate as a political move. Lots of people know that now, so I might expect less gutlessness from Congress, especially if people organize to get them to do the right thing

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Slightly OT, the numbers against in that vote jibe with my guess

as to how many real liberals are in Congress. Still the same 13 years later.

14% in each chamber.

[awoke_in_2003]

73. yeah, but in this...

and Glass Steagall, he should have stood on principle and forced congress to override.

[struggle4progress]

76. I've lost count of the times that, as an activist, I've wanted some POTUS to take a principled

stand, even if it was guaranteed to lose, and the POTUS instead went along with the political torrent. The reason for wanting the principled stand, of course, is message it sends. But a veto of a veto-proof bill accomplishes nothing with respect to relations between the Executive and Congress, except to force Congress to spend some time over-riding, which can pointlessly irritate the Congress and give it an excuse not to find time to act on other matters the POTUS may want addressed. So a natural response to a veto-proof bill, that a POTUS absolutely cannot stomach, would simply be not to sign it

Clinton signed. This seems to have been the result of a political calculation. I really disliked it and disliked his triangulation strategy in general. It may, however, have been brilliant politics: I won't ever know, because there's not a chance in hell I'd ever be able to play political games well enough to get anywhere near a major office

[TheWraith]

8. Does anyone know what happened to the suit by Massachusetts?

The state government was suing the Feds on the grounds that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminated against marriages performed in the state of Massachusetts, in violation of the full faith and credit clause. It was, on the face of it, a way better case than the other suit attempting to get to the Supremes out of California, the one that Ted Olsen is involved in.

Anyway as pointed out below, DOMA was veto-proof... and Clinton had a reasonable argument to make at Netroots Nation that it was better DOMA than allow a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to pass.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. My error -

I had forgotten about it being vetoproof. But the idea that a Constitutional amendment would have passed was absurd, and when Clinton signed it, I'd have liked to have heard some words of protest from him, that he was signing it because he had to, not because he believed it was a just or even constitutional law..........................

[karynnj]

14. Except it is genuinely difficult to get a constitutional amendment

You need 3/4ths of the states to ratify it. The equal rights amendment for women never passed. (Now, I would believe him if he said the Republicans pushed the bill and he feared not getting re-elected if he vetoed it. That would be believable. John Kerry was the only Senator up for re-election who voted against it - and he was running in MA.

Clinton ran ads bragging that Clinton signed DOMA on radio in conservative areas. This bill was passed in 1996, the year he was re-elected.

[ruggerson]

24. A constitutional amendment would have passed very easily in 1996

there has been a sea change in the last 13-15 years.

Yes, Kerry was brave to oppose it in the Senate. I can actually remember his speech: it was brilliant.

And, yes Clinton could have vetoed it and gone down fighting. But Clinton was gun shy on gay rights by that point - he had taken such a pounding on DADT in '92. And, he's correct. History will show in hindsight that it was far better that DOMA passed than a constitutional amendment which would have taken many decades to undo.

I'm not a huge fan of a lot of Clinton's presidency, but the revisionist history around here that casts him as the villian who spawned anti-gay legislation in the '90's is simply false and betrays a superficial understanding of what occurred.

[AlbertCat]

25. But Clinton was gun shy on gay rights by that point

Because of the crap that is "Don't ask don't tell", I remember my father had a bunch of Clinton 3 dollar bills.

[pnwmom]

26. Once again, you are a voice of reason. Yes, there has been a sea change

in the last 15 years. At that time, it would have been much easier to pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage than many people now seem to remember. Much, much easier than it would have been to pass the ERA. In fact, part of the reason the ERA wasn't passed is because so many people on the right connected it with gay marriage!

[karynnj]

33. I wasn't saying he was a villain

Just that re-election concerns seemed the more obvious reason - after all Wellstone, Biden, Harkin, etc all voted for it because they were up for re-election. That and the fact that he fan ads, make me think that it was not just a tactical move. Clinton seems to often try to rewrite history himself. Here, I doubt any person who was president then and up for re-election would have vetoed it - that would have been a political nightmare.



As to Kerry, that was Kerry's toughest race - against Weld. Kerry's speech still reads well now - and he quoted part of it when he backed the MA case that challenges it. (His speech when gays in the military was first discussed was outstanding as well.)

[TheWraith]

67. Well put.

People here have a tendancy to be completely fixated on getting everything, right now. They forget the fact that relative to other social causes, gay rights are moving at the speed of light. 15 years ago being gay was still far from mainstream, and the prevailing viewpoints were overwhelmingly against equal rights--toleration was the best to hope for in many situations.

[closeupready]

70. Considering that Wisconsin passed state laws against GLBT discrimination in 1982,

no disrespect intended ruggerson, but I just don't believe that for one minute, never have. It's repeated here ad nauseum by many people, but there have never ever been facts to support that claim.

Peace. :hi:

[pnwmom]

29. Many people then said passing the ERA would lead to gay marriage -- that's

one of the reasons it didn't pass.

The fact that the ERA didn't pass shows how conservative the country was at the time -- which is why a constitutional amendment against gay marriage would likely have been successful.

[karynnj]

30. I never heard that argument

All it took was slightly more than a quarter of the states to be that conservative. My guess is that the process was cumbersome enough that they would have gotten 3/4 ths of the states.

My point though is that there was a more obvious reason - getting re-elected. If it were a tactical move, I would imagine he wouldn't have run ads on it.

[closeupready]

71. +2 Nor have I.

And I'm old enough that I would remember if those arguments had been being made. And I don't.

[struggle4progress]

39. Since the Bill of Rights (on average) there's an amendment every 13 years, and since the Civil War

(on average) there's an amendment every 11 or 12 years. In my lifetime, there have been 5 or 6 amendments. It's not trivially easy, but it happens regularly

[Le Taz Hot]

49. Correct me if I'm wrong here

but wasn't the last one in 1965?

[struggle4progress]

50. Presidential Succession (1967), Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971), and Compensation of Members of

Congress (1992)

The last one is a bit weird: it's an amendment that was nearly ratified (before the Civil War?): a Republican Congressman got all excited about it and pushed for the final legislative approval(s)

[Le Taz Hot]

51. I stand corrected.

Gracias. :hi:

[ShadowLiberal]

31. That lawsuit is working it's way up to the supreme court I believe

I think the lawsuit is only a few months old, and it usually takes years to get a case heard by the supreme court, so it'll take time. I think they still have a few lower federal courts to work their way through first. Keep in mind though that the Supreme court has to agree to hear it.

Right now though the one getting more attention that's also working it's way to the supreme court (if they choose to hear the case) is one by Ted Olson that challenges California's gay marriage ban, but could also effect gay marriage in other areas.

[DaLittle Kitty]

32. Obama/Rahm Know That They Are Losing The Left After This POS INSURANCE Bailout Gets "outed"

Gotta try and put some water on the fire!

[kenfrequed]

53. Uhm yeah

And as much as I think repealing both DOMA and uddoing the evil of DADT are absolute necessities I do not think that this alone will somehow restore faith with 'the left.'

I think that their inability to speak to economic issues is still important and without a bit og economic populism and efforts to help the working poor and faltering middle class they will lose the economic left. Again.

[pinto]

3. Kick.

:kick:

[calimary]

4. YES!!!

[satya]

5. Another step in the right direction ... nt

[Soylent Brice]

6. K&R

[Seldona]

9. K&R

There is change in the air it seems. Bravo.

[Blue State Blues]

10. K&R for good news NT

[TheCoxwain]

11. KICK

[Union Yes]

12. Rec for human rights and equality for all.

[Arugula Latte]

15. I love the way Obama framed this. "It interferes with states' rights."

Take the right's language and turn it back on them like a gun.

[Toasterlad]

57. It Might Be Smart Politically, But It Sickens Me, Personally.

The state should have no more right to withhold my rights than the federal government should. I HATE when politicians equate my civil rights to things like gun ownership or liquor laws. I consider my rights just as inalienable as anyone elses, and I consider any politician who's willing to leave them up to a state's discretion to be an asshole.

[sakabatou]

16. If it passes, it would be GREAT

[Feron]

17. Now this is the change I voted for! n/t

[closeupready]

19. Good.

K&R

[kestrel91316]

20. YAY!!!

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

22. I'm glad he's introducing it as a full repeal

there were earlier reports that they were going to leave section 2 intact.

Nadler is a courageous and moral human being.

[earcandle]

23. Good. Keep your promises, Mr. President.

[defendandprotect]

27. Love Jerry Nadler -- and hope this DOMA gets knocked down . . .

I think everyone noticed that a good part of the Obama speech flak had to

do with the nutty right wing's fear of human sexuality -- what was it?

They were afraid that Obama would make their kids "gay"????

Wasn't that it?

Every couple has a 30% chance of having a homosexual child -- and I don't know

what that equates to in actual numbers, but obviously Mother Nature loves gays!!!

[damntexdem]

28. Mhmm, I'll hold my breath on that one.

Needs to be done, but it won't be this year. And if not now, when?

[customerserviceguy]

35. Agreed

There's a big difference between a Congressman introducing legislation, and it's passage. You think the Blue Dogs have been tough to deal with on healthcare? The states they come from have been the most lopsided in passage of anti-equality amendments staining their constitutions.

In fact, in every state where anti-equality measures have come up, the wingnuts have eventually won, with only a brief pause in Arizona, where the language was vague. We're coming up on popular votes on the subject in the blue states of Maine and Washington this year, I feel they will hold back the fundies there, but one or the other state could be a shocker. I sure didn't expect California to vote the way it did on Prop H8.

As for the when, that may just be left to the Supreme Court. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution may be our most powerful argument in a nation where at most about a fifth of the states will have equal marriage in effect by the time of a Supreme Court decision.

[Toasterlad]

58. +1. I Have Little Faith In Congress' Ability to Get This Done, And Zero In Obama's Willingness

to push for it. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.

[trickyguy]

34. It's about time for this administration to keep some of it's promises to the LGBT community.

This DOMA legislation is definitely discrimination.

Unless, of course, you're holding a Bible and then it's the law.

Times are changing and it's time for a CHANGE. Hoorah.:evilgrin:

[customerserviceguy]

36. It will, but it will be at some political cost

The wingnuts will spin this like a top on steroids. There will be a temptation to let the Supreme Court overturn DOMA (the Massachusetts case is speeding in that direction), but I do think that President Obama will do the right thing here.

The question is, will he expend enough political capital to bring waivering Blue Dogs from homophobic states along with him? Or, is there no amount of arm-twisting, pork-bribing, or just plain logical reasoning that would accomplish such a thing?

[ruggerson]

38. I'd be very surprised

if he lifted a finger. But he will sign it if it hits his desk.

[Toasterlad]

60. That Is Word For Word What I Was Going to Say.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. yup. this is how i feel too.

[AncientAtBirth666]

37. FUUUUUUUCK YEAH!!!

[alp227]

40. Don't forget that Nadler's representing New York, which is trying to legalize same-sex marriage

...right now. (Nadler represents the uber-wealthy 8th district of the state, Manhattan).

Here's what I think of the Defense of Marriage Act:
1. Since it was passed in 1996, there's been no "defense" of "traditional marriage" (the "one man, one woman" sort that the religious right wishes us all to follow). Why? The Jerry Springer and Maury trash talk shows continue to pollute our airwaves parading married people cheating on their loved ones, Divorce Court returned to TV in 1999 (after previous incarnations during the late '50s/'60s and late '80s/early '90s), there've been more babies born to unwed mothers than ever before, and we continue to have a 50% divorce rate.
2. Its clause that states are not obligated to recognize other states' (legally recognized) same-sex marriages is obviously a blatant violation of the US Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause. I wonder how the courts have let it get away with this crime for 13 years. DOMAwatch.org compiled a whole bunch of cases challenging DOMA. Obviously none of them succeeded given the continued existence of DOMA. In 2004, the (Republican-dominated) House voted for the Marriage Protection Act banning federal courts from hearing DOMA-related cases, but the Senate rejected it. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) re-intro'd MPA in early 2007, but MPA has rested in committee since then.
3. The DOMA was apparently inspired by the Hawaii Supreme Court case Baehr v. Miike (1993) that ruled that states need a compelling reason to ban SSM rather than the actual recognition by any state. (I took this info from Wikipedia's article about DOMA and will find reliable sources about it later) Well guess what? Look at how most of the New English states (CT, VT, MA, NH, ME) have started recognizing SSM! Even Iowa! California and NY are trying to get it in the books too (but in California, with the misinformed voters going for Prop 8, it's a whole 'nother story)

[beac]

41. Hurrah! About time.

Love is love. Marriage is a RIGHT!


BONUS: Watching the fundie head explosions!!! :bounce:

[Hekate]

43. This is great. I know some young people whose weddings I'd like to attend...

Watched them grow up, heard when they came out. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to say, "When are you kids gonna settle down together?"

It will happen some day -- and that day is getting closer bit by bit.

Hekate

[nvme]

45. The timing is horrible

I am all for the repeal of this heinous punitive law. I just see it may get dwarfed by health-care and windup in the shadow. I want the debate to see the light of day. I hope it does get some good floor time. I doubt it will. IMHO

[Betty Karlson]

46. Not sure about that.

It was more than high time, anyway, progress was made in repealing this un-Christian and un-human law.

My only concern is it will be used as leverage to get republicans to support some kind of public option. But considering how much opinion has shifted the last two decades, maybe it is just a genuine and much-welcomed initiative - which is what I will hold it to be until proven otherwise.

[noamnety]

74. It's never the right time

not when the republicans have the presidency because it will just get vetoed
not when the republicans own either the house or the senate because it won't pass
not when the democrats own the presidency, the house and the senate because it might affect reelections
not when the democrats are in charge of everything but there's other legislation going on that might dwarf it
not when the democrats are in charge but there's no other legislation going on because it might turn into a media circus
not while the war is going on

always tomorrow
never today


I don't know why there are so few sponsors
all the democrats should be sponsoring it

[burning rain]

47. Wonder how the administration will split the difference on this one?

.

[cindyfaulkner]

54. good

that is all there is to say. should have been done a long time ago or doma never have been introduced at all.

[Orangepeel]

55. Excellent. He should introduce it every year until our socieity is evolved enough for it to pass

both houses.

:thumbsup:

[Ohio Joe]

56. Please contact your reps and let them know you want DOMA repealed

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

It does not matter if they will support repeal or not, now is the time to flood them with notes letting them know you want it gone. The religious right will organize quickly and cry about it, our reps must know that they have support that far out numbers the wackos.

Be loud in support of this.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

63. Yes! Thanks for the link!

it's good to *actively* support. I truly believe President Obama knows and wants what is just for all Americans, that his words are NOT hot air. As citizens, we have to participate too.

[pleah]

59. K& R

[bluestateguy]

61. Is this getting a floor vote?

or will it sit in some committee chairman's "In" bin for months and months?

[krispos42]

62. Excellent!

:woohoo:

[JerseygirlCT]

64. Excellent. nt

[Politicub]

65. Promoting liberty - A fitting way to pay tribute to the tragedy of 9/11

I can't think of a better way to commemorate the horror of 9/11 than making our country a little more free. It would be amazing if each year we expanded liberty more and more to remember 9/11 and honor those who have died.

[Fearless]

66. Good.

Better late than never.

[Odin2005]

75. YAY!!!

:woohoo:

[Tim01]

77. Does it have a fair chance of passing? nt

[defendandprotect]

78. k i c k