Sen. Feinstein announces plan to repeal federal marriage statute

[cal04]

Source: CNN

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, announced Tuesday a bill to repeal the federal law that defines marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and that allows states to reject legal same sex marriages from other states.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, passed both the House and the Senate in 1996.

Feinstein said she is one of only 14 senators who voted against the legislation at the time. "I thought even then, this is unconstitutional and wrong. Well, today it's unconstitutional, I believe, and wrong," she said in a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington.

She said her bill would "strike the Defense of Marriage Act from law and would free the government to allow for the same type of benefits they allow for married couples to also be applied to same-sex couples."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/19/feinstein.doma/index.html

---

Dianne Feinstein in for long haul on DOMA repeal
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=93449&tsp=1
(snip)
"We are not faint hearts about this," Feinstein said at the National Press Club today, joining the Courage Campaign's California founder and chairman Rick Jacobs. "We are in this for the long march." She believes she has all Democrats on board and promised to wait out the "Tea Party idealogues." She said the Supreme Court will ultimately weigh in, but wants to pursue a legislative track as well to "secure the arena forever."

[joeybee12]

1. Damn DiFi!

every once in a while she does the right thing and I have to grudgingly admire her.

[Zorra]

19. +1

[TheWraith]

23. I know the feeling.

That said, this is most certainly a PR stunt, not something that is actually practical for at least 4 years or so, thanks to the Senate.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. I know what you mean.

I totally agree with you. I'm no DiFi fan, but every once in a while, she gets it right. Then again, she's up for reelection in 2012 so that might have something to do with it, too, even though she voted against DOMA initially.

[Ignis]

54. +1

[fasttense]

69. It seems to me that whenever Obama wants to shove a RepubliCON economic policy down our throats

he throws a bone at us by giving us a victory in another non-economic area.

He extended the bush tax give aways to the uber rich but then attempted to repeal DADT.

He supports DiFi repeal of the DOMA but is going to destroy Social Security and Medicare as we know it.

You can get married now, but you can't have heat or decent food in your old age.

[Ohio Joe]

2. Excellent

DOMA must go.

[RKP5637]

3. Recommend !!! n/t

[LynneSin]

4. Dianne is the best person to lead the fight

She knows better than anyone the importance of marriage equality having formerly been City Council leader back in San Francisco!

[KamaAina]

44. She once hosted a lesbian wedding in her backyard

when she was still an SF supervisor.

I guess technically, that'd be a "commitment ceremony", but you get the idea.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Why didn't anyone propose this when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress?

[kestrel91316]

7. Because then it would pass, silly. Don't you get it? It's just more kabuki theater.

[Blasphemer]

18. Would it have though?

I doubt it. And it would have served to expose certain Democratic members of congress (just as health care reform did) and I think the party, collectively, just wanted to avoid the issue.

[FreeBillClinton]

28. Bingo! (or at least caused uncomfortable votes)

[w4rma]

8. Because since the Third Way Democrats are working on destroying Social Security and Medicare.

That doesn't exactly pump up the voters who would vote Democratic, so they want Kabuki Theater bills to rally the base back. Very cynical and it won't work.

[HankyDubs]

30. I was having a similar thought, but...

Let's say it is a ploy. Let's say they are trying to shore up their base and get out some votes because they think this is a winning 2012 issue. They think they need one because they are planning a massive rightward lurch on economic justice issues across the board.

It's kind of a beautiful ploy. Cynical? I don't really agree. This law needs to be repealed regardless of whether it's a stunt or not. It's only a matter of time now before this issue generally becomes a big winner for left-thinking people across the spectrum. That time may be now. Anything that leads toward a more democratic and just society is a winner for us in the long run.

[No Elephants]

10. What Kestrel said. Plus, DiFi was not up for re-election in a blue state then. She is in 2012.

Still pretty bold, though, given Californians voted down equal human rights not all that long ago.

[Le Taz Hot]

70. SOME Californians voted down equal human rights

(read religious zealots) and we've been challenging it (and winning) in the courts ever since. We'll right that wrong . . . never doubt it.

[No Elephants]

12. Trial lawyers' old rule: Never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

[marasinghe]

68. touche'. ;D

just the other day, i was wondering about entrenched neocons from the glory days of bush the lesser; and how they've blended in nicely with the scenery. well, i guess all this blending furthers the current White House 'progressive' meme of: bipartisan or be damned.

nice return.
:toast:

[Shining Jack]

78. +1

Well said.

[dbonds]

25. Because they were waiting to offset other news, like gang of 6 compromise.

[pnwmom]

31. Because Democrats NEVER controlled both houses of Congress,

which I am sure you know.

When we had 59 votes, Lieberman was an Independent, not a Democrat. He had beaten a Democrat in the general election and we couldn't count on his vote for anything.

[No Elephants]

37. Actually. you can count on Lieberman's vote for equal rights. And no one tried hard to get it for

anything. For instance, he held his beloved Homeland Security chair throughout, even after campaigning for McCain..

[pnwmom]

45. No, you couldn't count on his vote -- he voted YES on DOMA.

But he, like many Democrats, might have thought that approving DOMA was the only way to head off a Republican push for a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage -- which at that time could have passed in enough state legislatures to become law. By voting for DOMA, Democrats hoped to render that discussion moot -- and they succeeded. Now if DOMA is repealed it is much less likely than in the Clinton era that the Republicans would succeed in passing a Constitutional Amendment; which, if passed, would be very difficult to overturn.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/DOMA_2.htm

Senators Voting "No"
No Republican Senators voted no. All were Democrats: Akaka (D-HI), Boxer (D-CA), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerrey (D-NE), Kerry (D-MA), Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Moynihan (D-NY), Pell (D-RI), Robb (D-VA), Simon (D-IL), Wyden (D-OR).

[24601]

61. Where do you get your info? He's a National Security Hawk

On social issues, he's as reliably liberal as Bernie Sanders - also an indy.

There is no excuse for not tackeling big issues when the Senate Democratic Caucus had 58 Dems and 2 Independents. No excuse at all - just a failure to lead.

[Zorra]

76. Constitutionally, 51 votes is a majority in the Senate.

The filibuster process is a procedure adopted by the Senate. It is a Senate rule.

Democrats in the Senate could have, and should have, ended the filibuster. They could have done so at any time when they were in the majority. Some said that ending the filibuster was dangerous.

But not ending the filibuster has proven to be fatal.

It was crystal clear to me, and many others back in early '09, that republicans were going to use the the filibuster to hold our country hostage with the intention of eventually destroying our government and democracy. This should also have been clear to Harry Reid. To any Dem Senator. It's not rocket science. It is simple common sense.

Their failure to end the filibuster in 2009 has ruined our nation, possibly permanently. They didn't put any gas in the tank.

Now, we can't go anywhere. The republicans stripped the car while it was sitting by the side of the road.

Now we are stranded with no help in sight.

How To End the Filibuster Forever
The Senate can kill the rule any time! And with only 51 votes.
By Akhil Reed Amar and Gary HartPosted Thursday, Jan. 6, 2011, at 2:11 PM ET

Is the Senate like Cinderella—does it have the power to transform itself in only one limited moment, at the opening of the new Congress? That is one of the two big questions in the filibuster-reform debate that is now taking center stage in the United States Senate. The other is whether the Senate can change the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote, regardless of what the rule itself seems to say. The short answers to these questions are that there are no magic moments in the Senate and no need to muster 60 votes to repeal the filibuster rule. The upper house has the clear constitutional authority to end the filibuster by simple majority vote on any day it chooses.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280238

[SSDA]

66. Bingo!

We are being played aain. This is timed to run interference for Obama on the draconian cuts he is pushing.

[kestrel91316]

6. Good for her, but it would be nice if she acted like a liberal ALL the time.

[Gormy Cuss]

75. But she's not a liberal -- never has been, never will be.

I wouldn't even call her a left-leaning moderate but I will thank her for her liberal viewpoint on this issue.

[No Elephants]

9. Who is this woman and what has she done with DiFi?

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Feinstein was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280

[geardaddy]

26. Yep, even Wellstone voted "Aye"

:(

[No Elephants]

38. And, in 1996, who controlled Congress? And was DiFi up for re-election in a blue state then too?

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. She was not up for reelection 1996.

She was elected in a special election 1992 and to a full term in 1994. 1996 was four years before her next reelection.

[Mz Pip]

13. She's up for re election

and liberals in CA aren't too happy with her. She's in for a tough fight and I think she wants to call attention to one of the issues that can get her some liberal support.

[Le Taz Hot]

71. She's now Candidate Feinstein.

I'm still looking for a challenger though I don't have much hope as she's a CDP darling.

[Snoutport]

14. Go, Dianne, Go! K & R

[closeupready]

15. Good. Thank you, Sen. Feinstein!

:hi: :)

[DreamSmoker]

16. Must be close to election time???

This Senator has done absolutely nothing here in Cali recently...
And why is she now going to step this up?????
She has done nothing for Gays and equality here..
How about the immigration issue???
Or how about the biggy... Cannabis????
She is nothing but a Professional Politician as far as I see..

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. Is it just me, or is DiFi shedding her DLC roots lately? She's been more

liberal on a host of social AND *economic* issues as of late.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. She has been against DOMA since 1996 when it became law

[No Elephants]

43. She's up for re-election in a blue state and certain things will never pass the House.

So, she can have it both ways. The GLBT community will definitely learn of her efforts through their media and networks, but it won't pass the house or the senate, so she won't have to answer for it. And low info voters will never know the difference.

[lobodons]

20. SCOTUS before Congress

DOMA will need to be struck down by SCOTUS since Hell will not freeze over in Congress. Dems win in 2012 and 2016 then majority on SCOTUS might switch, otherwise DOMA stays on books.

[No Elephants]

46. Scalia has already indicated his views, which I suspect Thomas, Roberts and Alito share.

It all comes down to Kennedy, who is an older Republican. I'm hoping he's in the closet. Otherwise, my friends are screwn.

[ruggerson]

64. Kennedy

wrote the majority opiniion in both Lawrence v Texas and Romer v Evans, the two most important USSC gay rights decisions in the last fifty years.

[cal04]

21. Carney just addressed this and said the president will support the legislation

someone just asked him about Feinstein's bill at the press briefing

http://www.politico.com/politico44/
On a topic change, Carney is asked about the Respect for Marriage Act, and he says Obama supports the legislation that would take the Defense of Marriage Act off the books. "The president has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act," Carney says. "He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act."

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. Just tell the teabaggers that they are voting for states rights and against the federal intrusion

Done.

[William769]

24. K&R.

[FreeBillClinton]

29. I can't believe so many people are falling for this.

She'll promise to fight for your cause as long as there's no chance she might win.

[cliffordu]

50. Great insight!!! Welcome to DU! Enjoy your stay!!!

[Le Taz Hot]

72. If you'll review the responses to the OP (original post)

you'll see that not many of us are "falling for this." We see it, as was mentioned earlier, as the "kabuki theater" it is. Welcome to DU.

[Not Me]

32. This is another aftershock of the NY State vote

If CA court cases follow soon, there will be a whole lot of momentum across the country.

[Fearless]

33. Will the president support this??

[closeupready]

39. I thought I read earlier that he DOES support her efforts.

nt

[Fearless]

42. If you come across a link, I'd be grateful. n/t

[66 dmhlt]

47. Obama Officially Backs Measure To Repeal DOMA

President Obama is officially backing legislation that would repeal the 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage even for couples married under state law.
(snip)
The Respect for Marriage Act, sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), "would take the Defense of Marriage Act off the books for once and for all," and Obama is "proud" to support it, Carney said.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/obama-officially-backs-measure-to-repeal-doma.php?ref=fpb

[Fearless]

48. Thank you. That is good news.

[polmaven]

62. And this:

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/

Human Rights Campaign posted this link on faxcebook today.

[MessiahRp]

60. Easy to do this when it has no shot in hell of passing...

Will rope in progressives without any real action being taken.

Rp

[NYC Liberal]

80. Obama has opposed DOMA for a long time. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

73. There was a reason the WH chose her

to carry the message. No coincidence that the Senator from California, who is up for re-election in 2012, was chosen to carry the water.

[aquamarina]

35. Not a DiFi fan but good on her for doing the right thing.

[grahamhgreen]

36. As much as i'm for it - it's not the right time, we need to focus on re-taxing the rich.

[FreeBillClinton]

40. Focus on whichever, neither will happen regardless.

There's no need to split sides and/or issues among progressives. None of are going go to get what we want.

[closeupready]

41. Incorrect.

nt

[Lordquinton]

51. Sure, focus on one thing

The other side will be working on 10 things, so while we might have a chance on one thing, we'll lose 9 others. Us liberals need to learn to multi task, or we will never win anything again.

[Bluebear]

55. That's right. It's rarely the "right time" for GLBT issues.

[grahamhgreen]

58. Just 2 more weeks.

[Shining Jack]

65. +1

Shit, it's never the time! Sick of those who keep parroting this!

[awoke_in_2003]

52. K&R. nt

[Firebrand Gary]

53. That's my Senior Senator! HooRaa Difi!

[Starry Messenger]

56. k&r

[Cool Logic]

57. The irony of it all...

Repealing an unConstitutional law.

[Major Hogwash]

59. It's harder to get bad laws removed from the books than it is to put them on the books!

She knows that, or at least, she's going to find that out soon enough.

[ruggerson]

63. Recommended - go DiFi

n/t

[Scurrilous]

67. K & R

:thumbsup:

[BlueJac]

74. Must be reelection time!

[Imagevision]

77. Why does this woman still have her job California? you haven't learned by now???

[high density]

79. How about getting government out of the marriage business entirely?

Let religions do whatever they want to do in regards to marriage. At the government level, recognize a civil union for the "benefits."