Subscribe to Breaking NewsNeff: Down with DOMA
One of the community’s staunchest advocates in Congress, U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, is sponsoring legislation to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
Nadler has long been on record in defense of equal marriage rights. Who can forget his attack on the vile, anti-gay Marriage Protection Act in 2004? “One would think that the possibility that somewhere a lesbian or gay couple might live out their years peacefully and happily were a greater threat to the future of the United States than al Qaeda.”
In his latest charge to take down DOMA, the representative – chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties – is focusing on marriage, not civil unions and not domestic partnerships.
Nadler recently told the Bay Area Reporter, “Historically domestic partnerships and other relationships have been an interregnum until we get to marriage, which we need to push for as soon as possible.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Civil unions and domestic partnerships have served important purposes, but we, in the push for equality, have identified marriage as the prize. To include civil unions and domestic partnerships would probably derail Nadler’s legislation.
Certainly to include civil unions and domestic partnerships would muddle the issue for Congress and for state lawmakers trying to decide whether to introduce their own bills to legalize gay marriage or to offer same-sex couples a parallel to marriage.
To include civil unions and domestic partnerships would confuse citizens as well, some of whom by now must think gay people want three times the legal forms of partnership recognition as straights.
So, what would Nadler’s bill accomplish?
The bill would repeal Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states that ban same-sex marriage to refuse to recognize legal same-sex marriages from other states. Gay couples can legally marry in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts, and will be able to marry in New Hampshire beginning in January 2010.
But today, a heterosexual couple married in Massachusetts will be recognized as such in Florida, yet not a gay couple.
Today, a heterosexual couple married in Iowa can move across the border and still be considered married in Illinois, yet not so a lesbian couple.
Today, a heterosexual couple wed in Vermont will be recognized as married in Texas, yet not a same-sex couple.
How is this so?
Well, heterosexual couples are protected under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution that says, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Congress, and with his signature Bill Clinton, stripped gays and lesbians who would eventually legally marry of that constitutional protection in 1996.
Repealing DOMA and enacting a “certainty provision” requiring one state to recognize the marriages of another could provide stability for married same-sex couples and their family members.
No doubt there will be fights among states and states and fights among states and the feds with a repeal, but eliminating DOMA and enacting the “certainty provision” is critical.
And the bill would repeal Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages.
Today, the federal government is denying same-sex couples in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts the marriage rights it affords opposite-sex couples across the country. Those rights and responsibilities number more than 1,000 and include Social Security survivor payments, the opportunity to jointly file taxes and guaranteed leave from work to care for an ailing spouse.
Look for the bill when Congress returns from its August recess, and urge the members of your congressional delegation to support passage.
This past week we read that the national lgbt groups have decided to focus on things like passage of hate crimes and ENDA legislation and have back-burnered marriage for now. I understand that these issues would affect many more people than marriage simply because so few of us currently have the recognized right to marry and that’s why the change in focus.
I wonder why Nadler has decided to ignore their priorities and go for marriage anyway. Is it because he believes the anti-gays, faced with marriage as a possibility, would be more willing to pass the other things? Is it because, like Boies, Nadler just wants to do the right thing for all of us? Or is it because our national groups have lost “people power” in recent months?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Bobbi, I thought that it was state groups, not national groups, that are focused on Enda etc…..and in fact I had read it not that they were backing off marriage, simply that upon review it seemed they were working on the other things more fervently.
Ask people in Maine and I think you’d get a different response. Nationally DOMA, ENDA and DADT should be our highest priorities, and of equal import.
Lisa…good story but I must correct you, no gay person in Maine can legally wed. The law is on the books but under challenge. There will be no marriages unless the veto is defeated.
EVERYONE: contribute to Maine, they need our help!!!!!!
I hope the bill passes, but I doubt it’ll pass this year. The Matthew Shepard Act and the UAFA seem to be higher priorities on the legislature’s gay agenda.
This will be DOA, especially if they insist on repealing section 2, it may be possible to get a repeal of just section 3 through the house and senate, but there is no change of getting a repeal of section 2 through the senate, and i very much doubt it could get through the house either.
What a pain in the a** this is. My partner and I are registered in California as domestic partners, because we thought it would help. Instead, it created loop-holes that apply to everything we try to do. It is better than nothing, but still not as powerful as a “marriage license”. We still had to register medical power’s of attorney, because a domestic partnership can be contested. We had to file bankruptcy in 2006 and were required to file separately (doubling the cost), because we were not “married”. We are required to file State taxes as “married”, but still file “single” on our federal returns, which raises our accountant costs because of the added paperwork. I am disabled and would qualify for assistance, if not for my spouses income. If it benefits local, county, state, or federal interests then we are considered “spouses”., but if its for our benefit we are told “you are not married” thus treated as separate. Crazy!
Marriage or civil union? I don’t really care what they call it, as long as it is legally recorded and recognized as the same, countrywide.
These types of bills take years to pass. Initially, a small number of left-wing and pro-LGBT members of congress will sign on a co-sponsors, but the bill won’t make it out of committee. However, with an actual Bill introduced, gay rights groups can start pushing more and more house members to sign on as co-sponsors, which will eventually lead to hearings, a Senate companion bill, etc.
The chances of this bill passing this year are zero, so it’s not a change of strategy or focus, but rather the first step in laying the groundwork for something to happen a few years down the road. Nadler has always been a staunch supporter of LGBT people and has been willing to be out front on getting legislation like this started. When he introduced the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (now Uniting American Families Act) a decade ago, it seemed like a loony issue with no chance of passing, but the bill made gradual advances over the years (in no small part due to his lobbying his colleagues) and now seems like a real possibility. Go Jerry!
DaveW,
Thanks! I must have been having a senior moment when I read that.
I echo you — we must help Maine!
Different approaches are needed to reach the same goals in different parts of the country. Those approaches need to be happening simultaneously. In my own state (Ohio), each is relevant. Ohio has some of the most venomous antigay legislation of any state. ENDA would remove gay as a reason for firing, which is increasingly important as our union jobs disappear. Repealing DADT would probably have more impact in less urban parts of the state, where military experience is more common. This would also make a difference among urban blacks and hispanics, who are more likely than urban whites to enlist. If Uncle Sam says gay is OK, it will make a difference. Repealing DOMA will allow gays to marry in other states (or Ontario). Ohio is pretty family-focused, but legally-married gay couples might make a bigger difference in urban areas like Cleveland and Columbus because there’s already a level of acceptance. When you see married couples, and you know there’s some arbitrary reason why they can’t get married here, then the existing laws begin to look absurd and ready for repeal. (That’ll take a lot of work in Ohio.) In a state with so much legislative hostility against gays, we need all the help we can get just so we can help ourselves.
@Drewski
Well put!
I sometimes fail to remember that as a Californian we have it easier than other States do. Making every State in the union “safe” is priority.
>I wonder why Nadler has decided to ignore their priorities and go for marriage anyway.
The strategy for Supreme Court cases and legislation seem opposite. In the case of Supreme Court cases, people are encouraged not to bring a case until your chances are very good that you’ll win it. For legislation, I see people doing the opposite: bring it up in committee every year, get people used to it over time, and gather more and more cosponsors and backing.
So, it could be “good strategy” to bring up this bill without the intention of pushing it to passage this year. It’s setting the stage for next year or the year after.
You have a minor error. Marriages are recognized in other states on the basis of comity, not full faith and credit. The key point that marriage should be portable is valid, but it is possible for one state to not recognize another’s marriages based on public policy. Typically, thinks like consanguinity or age outside the limits considered acceptable in the other state.