07/08/2009
BOSTON – Senator John Kerry threw his support behind the lawsuit filed earlier today by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley which challenges the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Senator Kerry also supported the lawsuit filed in March by 15 Massachusetts residents in coordination with GLAD. In 1996, Senator Kerry was the only Senator running for reelection who voted against DOMA, and he has continued to speak out against DOMA and its harmful effects ever since.
"The courts have always been the last resort for those seeking justice under the law, and I am proud to stand with Attorney General Coakley and wholeheartedly support her efforts to right a wrong that passed the Senate over the objections of both of Massachusetts’ Senators,” said Senator Kerry today .
“In 1996, I voted against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act not just because I believed it was nothing more than a fundamentally political ploy to divide Americans, but because it is unconstitutional. Thirteen years later, I still defy you to find a single Senator who can credibly argue that it is within the Senate's power to strip away the word or spirit of a constitutional clause by simple statute. DOMA should never have passed and should never have become the law of the land. Unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair, today the human cost is especially clear and compelling. Denying same sex couples the same rights and protections under the law as enjoyed by opposite sex couples has absolutely nothing to do with defending marriage. This lawsuit is a necessary step in ensuring everyone in Massachusetts can live their lives and raise their families secure in the knowledge that their commitment to each other doesn't make them any less an American than their heterosexual families, friends and neighbors," Kerry continued.
The following is an excerpt from Kerry’s speech on the floor of the United States Senate in 1996 in which he first argued that DOMA was unconstitutional:
“I oppose this legislation because not only is it meant to divide Americans, but it is fundamentally unconstitutional, regardless of what your views are. DOMA is unconstitutional. There is no single Member of the U.S. Senate who believes that it is within the Senate's power to strip away the word or spirit of a constitutional clause by simple statute.
“DOMA would, de facto, add a section to our Constitution's full faith and credit clause, article IV, section 1, to allow the States not to recognize the legal marriage in another State. That is in direct conflict with the very specific understandings interpreted by the Supreme Court of the clause itself.
“The clause states--simple words--`Full faith and credit shall be given'--not `may be given,' `shall be given'--`in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.' It says: And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
“It doesn't say no effect. It doesn't say can nullify. It doesn't say can obviate or avoid. It says it has to show how you merely procedurally prove that the act spoken of has taken place, and if it has taken place, then what is the full effect of that act in giving full faith and credit to that State.
“I think any schoolchild could understand that allowing States to not accept the public act of another is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers laid forth in the clause itself. Let me repeat: Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
“Now, if we intend to change it--and that is a different vote than having the constitutional process properly adhered to. But it seems to me that what Congress is doing is allowing a State to ignore another State's acts, and every law that Congress has ever passed has invoked the full faith and credit of another State's legislation.
“All of these laws share a basic common denominator. They all implement the full faith and credit mandate. They do not restrict it. Not once has it been restricted in that way. For example, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1990 provided the States have to enforce child custody determinations made by other States. The Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders of 1994 provided that States have to enforce child support determinations made by other States. It did not say you could not do it. It did not say you could avoid it. It did not diminish it. It said you have to enforce it. The Safe Homes for Women Act of 1994 required States to recognize protective orders issued in other States with regard to domestic violence.
“Those laws are the products of constitutional exercises of the appropriate congressional law in implementing the full faith and credit clause. The bill before us, a statute, is the exact opposite. It is an extreme unconstitutional attempt to restrict and undermine the basic fundamental approach which helps create the concept of a unified and single nation.”
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
