Respect for Marriage Act introduced in House - Passage would repeal DOMA

[kpete]

Source: Washington Blade

Respect for Marriage Act introduced in House
Passage would repeal DOMA

From Washington Blade staff reports
Sep 15 2009, 11:46 AM | | |

The Respect for Marriage Act, which, if passed, would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law in 1996, was introduced in the House today.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) are the lead co-sponsors of the measure along with Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY).

The bill would also provide same-sex couples with federal benefits and protections from a valid marriage from a state where same-sex marriages are legal if the couple moves or travels to another state, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

“DOMA does real harm by denying thousands of lawfully-married same-sex couples the federal rights and benefits that only flow through marriage. Many of these include the protections couples turn to in times of need, like Social Security survivors’ benefits, medical leave to care for an ailing spouse and equal treatment under U.S. immigration laws. Today’s introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA is a welcome step, and as more states recognize the commitment of loving same-sex couples and their families, it's time for this law to go into the history books where it belongs," said HRC President Joe Solmonese in a statement

Read more: http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27207

[tekisui]

1. knr!~

[Orangepeel]

2. Good job naming the bill

:thumbsup:

[DKRC]

6. +1!

:kick: & Rec!

[Robb]

11. +2 and another rec here

:thumbsup:

[WePurrsevere]

18. I agree! I love when Dems...

turn it back on RepubliCons like this. :D

[Jackpine Radical]

24. Yeah, they're finally getting smart.

I always wondered what PR genius was behind the naming of S-CHIP.

[Mad_Dem_X]

33. ITA!

[alp227]

38. Although it's respectful in some degree...

...it still creates a situation in which same-sex couples in some states won't have the equal rights of their out-of-state counterparts just because the states will have to recognize other states' marriages (hetero or homo) despite restricting the locally legal definition of marriage to the traditional "one man and one woman". That's sort of like after Prop. 8 passed in California, only same-sex couples married during the summer of 2008 (after the State Supreme Court's In re Marriage Cases decision overturning Prop. 8's predecessor from 2000, Prop. 22) were still "married".

[valerief]

39. Agreed! nt

[KamaAina]

42. Future headline: "GOP Votes 'No' On Respect for Marriage"

In. Your. Face! :P

[Initech]

50. The American Taliban will find someway to repeal it like they did with Prop h(8).

[Mithreal]

55. Yes indeed. K&R nt

[Politicub]

71. Agreed - we dems are learning!!

:kick:

[Tansy_Gold]

3. How soon can we get 1000 recs on this one?

It's about TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jackpine Radical]

25. I gave it one.

After all, I could afford to. I have no competing threads in the running today.

[Tansy_Gold]

32. Big of you

I didn't know it was a freakin' competition.

[Jackpine Radical]

59. That was an attempt at a joke.

[Deep13]

27. #88 here. nt

[eleny]

4. Nice that one of our Colorado Dems is a sponsor

:bounce:

[Hawkeye-X]

5. Of course, it doesn't hurt that he's openly gay

as well.

[eleny]

7. Yeah and the sky isn't falling over it

That's progress in itself. :D

[bluestateguy]

8. Will it get a floor vote?

My sense of it is that if it does get a vote a lot of nervous nelly Blue Dogs will vote no.

[Divine Discontent]

9. K&R w/o comment

[Arkana]

10. So instead of DOMA, it's...ROMA?

[Robb]

12. Technically RFMA

...But I like yours better. :D

[awoke_in_2003]

21. Hey Robb, send some this way...

and K&R

[Jackpine Radical]

26. I was thinking more like...

[closeupready]

13. Terrific!

n/t

[krispos42]

14. Mr. Burns approves

[GodlessBiker]

15. Barney Frank seems not to approve of this new measure. I think he's mistaken.

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=96326

[WePurrsevere]

17. Why limit how this is overturned to one or the other...

type of approach? Why not continue to fight in the courts to overturn it AND work on passing this legislation to repeal DOMA? Wouldn't going after it in two different ways have a better chance of something finally being done to ditch this abhorrent bit of nonsense? :shrug:

[ieoeja]

47. If it is overturned on Constitutional grounds, they need a Constitutional amendment to reinstate.

If repealed legislatively then Cons can legislatively reinstate it next time they are in power. Changing the US Constitution is a much more difficult process.

Consider California where the state constitution can be changed just as easily as legislation. Gay Marriage went from legal to illegal as soon as the mob got whipped into a frenzy over it.

Edit to note that if DOMA is repealed legislatively, the courts will immediately dismiss cases challenging it. So if Cons do reinstate DOMA at a latter date, we would be back to square one.

[WePurrsevere]

57. Thank you. That makes quite a bit of sense...

So basically if you're sure SCOTUS would find DOMA unconstitutional it would be better to just let things stand as they are, run through the court system and hope it's ruled unconstitutional. Are there any cases close to being put before them?

I would think SCOTUS would find it unconstitutional but has there been any indication from any of them as to how they would vote?

[Toasterlad]

16. Great. Now Let's See If Anything Will Come Of It.

[No Elephants]

19. Great! Keeping my fingers crossed for swift enactment.

[tosh]

20. + another.

[Soylent Brice]

22. K&R

[Bette Noir]

23. Hear, hear.

[cadmium]

28. Nice nt

[SEANdoody]

29. Great!

I really hope this can pull through.

[sakabatou]

30. Awesome

[grantcart]

31. good news

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Great news! nt

[AntiFascist]

35. K&R ! n/t

[AlbertCat]

36. How about a bill to get Government out of the marriage business altogether?

The government should only be concerned about the LEGAL side of marriage.... concerning property, taxes and heirs, that sort of thing. The government should only do civil unions. The laws for which would apply to anyone and everyone who applied for a license. If all terms for that are met, then the government would recognize the union. Then after that, the couple could get married in any kind of ceremony they want. Or have no ceremony at all if they so choose. The religious aspects of marriage.... how the ceremony is performed and who can get a ceremony, is none of the Government's business. Gays could get married if they want in a church or temple or shell grotto that performs such ceremonies. Churches that don't like gay marriage do not have to perform them, but they cannot stop the legal union of consenting adults.

[demigoddess]

40. perfectly sane and appropriate, but when did our country do what was sane

and appropriate. At least not lately

this is what my husband and I would like to see.

[ieoeja]

48. How is that different from today?

The government already IS only concerned about the LEGAL side of marriage.

Then after that, the couple can get married in any kind of ceremony they want. Or have no ceremony at all if they so choose. The religious aspects of marriage.... how a ceremony is performed and who can get a ceremony, is none of the Government's business. Gays can get married if they want in a church or temple or shell grotto that performs such ceremonies. Churches that don't like gay marriage do not have to perform them, but they cannot stop the legal union of consenting adults.

Only the government can, and does, stop the legal union of consenting adults.

[AlbertCat]

58. Only the government can, and does, stop the legal union of consenting adults.

And on what grounds do they STOP such unions?

Religious?

I thought so.

[jberryhill]

53. It's pretty much that way now

No state government requires a religious act to get married.

[alp227]

37. Good! Call your rep. and ask them to vote "Yes" on RFMA!

Finally, the House hears legislation that will uphold the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. It's too bad that douches like the American Fascist, err sorry Family Association and National Organization Against, sorry for Marriage are intimidating our elected officials against creating a constitutional amendment that'd fully recognize same-sex marriage. Back in 2005, Canada's Civil Marriage Act legalized SSM nationwide.

[Odin2005]

41. YAY!!!

[BlueJazz]

43. I'm happy about this....and I still feel that until Gays have full rights ...

..(as the rest of Society), they should not have to pay any taxes.

If Society wants to treat my Gay Friends as Second Class Citizens then let them pay the price.

[defendandprotect]

44. Good news -- good luck -- hope it gets a lot of support everywhere!

[gauguin57]

45. I know my two senators will vote for this if it ever gets to the Senate.

I wish I had a congressman who will listen to me when I write to him. But he's a neocon of the neoconniest order. *sigh* Well, I'll just add this to my health-reform letter.

[happygoluckytoyou]

46. ABOUT TIME.... DEMS FINALLY LEARN TO NAME A BILL... CLEAN SKY... DEATH TAX... NO CHILD'S LEFT BEHIND

[Tansy_Gold]

49. kick n/t

[Initech]

51. Good, something like this needs to pass in our country.

[salguine]

52. The cynic in me wants to know what odious thing is being hidden behind the name,

"The Respect for Marriage Act". It seems like whenever Congress passes some piece of legislation that has a name like that, it's usually camouflage for some shitty thing. I mean, I'll be as happy as anyone to see DOMA on the scrap heap, but I just gotta wonder. I've been around too long not to be suspicious of literally everything that comes out of Congress.

[druidity33]

72. you mean

things like the "Healthy Forest Initiative", and the "Clean Air" Act. I think that was *bu$h's thing... or maybe just an R thing. What did Orwell call that? Doublespeak?


We'll see if Congress is doublespeaking ...

[ruggerson]

54. +213

[caseymoz]

56. K & R: Beat the Republicans at their own game.

The blockhead mob will never be able to get this one right, no matter how much Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh rail on it, most of their audience will still think they are railing about passing it, or railing on the necessity of passing DOMA.

[Vidar]

60. K&R

[24601]

61. Married, filing jointly with the IRS? n/t

[Fearless]

62. Hell yes!

[and-justice-for-all]

63. DOMA is a bigot bill.

Whom I marry is my fucking business...

[pnwmom]

64. A brilliant choice to call that bill "Respect for Marriage Act." n/t

[wpelb]

65. Could this be a ploy?

I wonder if Rep. Frank's lack of support is based on the opinion (or even knowledge?) that this bill is a ploy to get health care reform passed with a public option. Blue Dog Democrats could vote against this, but for health care reform with the public option, without appearing to be too liberal.

[David Zephyr]

66. Kick!

!

[TankLV]

67. It's about time!!!

[tomm2thumbs]

68. K&R

[struggle4progress]

69. It would be great to have a bill number and list of co-sponsors

But I can't find the bill yet on Thomas

[defendandprotect]

70. k i c k

[jeremyfive]

73. Great News

If repugnant morans like Dubya and Joe Wilson can get the full benefits of marriage. . .

. . . then it seems that such benefits should be available to non-baboons, as well. American fairness.

[Renew Deal]

74. Is there any chance of this surviving the Senate?

:shrug: