House Dems To Push Legislative End To DOMA

WASHINGTON -- In light of the Obama administration's decision to drop its legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that the president considers it unconstitutional, Democrats will be launching a renewed effort to formally overturn the federal gay-marriage ban through congressional action.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told The Huffington Post that he will be introducing the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, "very soon" and with "quite a few cosponsors."

The idea is to take advantage of the headwind created by the Department of Justice's Wednesday announcement and push for a permanent solution over the legality of laws that prohibit gay marriage. Until Congress acts, or the Supreme Court issues a ruling, DOMA -- which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states -- continues to be enforced.

"The president's move is another step in the increasing realization that there is no conceivable justification for DOMA, that it is motivated, was motivated, purely by irrational considerations and fear and that there is no rational basis that will stand up to a constitutional challenge," said Nadler. "Hopefully, that will make it somewhat easier to pass legislation in Congress."

But the climb remains steep. House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) criticized the administration's decision not to defend DOMA in a statement shortly after the announcement was made, calling it "irresponsible." And as chair of the committee, Smith has wide latitude over what bills get a hearing.

And yet the reaction to the DOMA news within the Republican Party has been fairly muted. House Speaker John Boehner's office put out a statement that skirted the substance of the issue, instead hammering the president for trying "to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation." And while Smith himself offered strong support for the philosophical foundation of the law, his office said it did not have ultimate say as to whether they'd step in to defend the law in court -- that would fall on Boehner.

UPDATE: Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) office emailed The Huffington Post to note that she plans to offer similar legislation in the Senate to effectively end DOMA.

"As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act," Feinstein said in a prepared statement. "My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that. I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed."

Comments

[samtee]

09:03 AM on 02/25/2011

At least he will get some votes next election for trying.

[20free10]

07:04 AM on 02/25/2011

I don't agree, but at least this Democrat is doing it legally, can't say much for the Emperor in the White House, but that seems to be his way of doing business, you know, screw the people, it's my way or no way.

[cslib]

07:19 AM on 02/25/2011

Can't grasp the facts can you? He hasn't done anything unconstitutional about DOMA he just isn't going to defend its constitutionality in court but he will still enforce it unilateral either it is repealed or struck down by the courts.

[Dead Che]

08:43 AM on 02/25/2011

I'm sure you will feel the same way when the next Republican President chooses not to defend challenges to Obamacare and Rowe v Wade.

[Gloria5]

08:56 AM on 02/25/2011

Te.abag.gers say anything that pops in their head. They lie so much the MSM doesn't even notice it anymore, and this is their successful point. Lie every day, about everything, is the GOP's motto. Facts mean nothing, just make up stuff as you go along. Democrats should stop trying to have honest conversations with them, because we all know you can't.

[20free10]

11:18 AM on 02/25/2011

Get the bags off your chin before you choke

[VKoval]

04:49 AM on 02/25/2011

couldnt the democrats have done this anytime between 2008 and 2010?

[LintLass]

08:48 AM on 02/25/2011

Could have, but the GOP would have been screaming about it, despite DOMA being obviously Unconstitutional, (In fact Obama was sharply criticized by the LGBT community for previous DOJ defenses of DOMA resorting to the kind of homophobic tactics and untruths that the anti-marriage bigots have used: while the defense was obligatory, the DOJ didn't have to use such tactics.) Obama's position has been that he's wanted more legislative support and other things that'll hopefully make civil equality *sitck* rather than be something that will keep getting reversed whenever a conservative's in office, or the GOP needs a wedge issue to bog the government down in.

(Yes, the irony of Boehner's statement is pretty obvious: he among other Republicans are the ones bent on wasting time and vast resources trying to continue discrimination and inequality, and all that trying to justify DADT (Promoting more bigotry in the process, of course.')

[statementOfIncensed]

03:07 AM on 02/25/2011

I've changed my mind- with the death of the Union, the LGBT community becomes even more important as a source of campaign financing. This explains the timing of the decision no?

[Loyd Hawkins]

08:33 AM on 02/25/2011

No.

[talkstocoyotes]

02:41 PM on 02/26/2011

No.

[djdeleon]

01:00 AM on 02/25/2011

Finally

[JShankel]

12:58 AM on 02/25/2011

I didn't notice all this wailing and gnashing of teeth when Obama declined to defend the ban on firearms and religious proselytizing (your basic Right Wing Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, that)  in national parks.

[ThirdSection]

03:35 AM on 02/25/2011

I'll be the guy you see at Yosemite next summer wearing a bandolier and shouting at families to be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

[PhillyProfessor]

06:06 AM on 02/25/2011

RAmen! F&F'ed

[grouseless54]

11:10 AM on 02/25/2011

Dear ThirdSection:
I'm only a couple of hours away from Yosemite. Give me some dates - I'll be there

[Music Illuminati]

12:45 AM on 02/25/2011

About time.

[ElenaOfJersey]

12:16 AM on 02/25/2011

You know, reading these comments, I have to stop and wonder how many of you have actually sat down and read the Bible.

And by 'you', I mean all the Bible-thumpers insisting that gay marriage is wrong and that homosexual marriage should not be afforded the same rights and recognition as heterosexual marriage. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you just looked at the words without absorbing the meaning, if you even bothered to crack the book at all.

The Bible is first and foremost about LOVE. Marriage is about LOVE in all its forms. Open your minds and learn to actually absorb what you're reading and you might start getting along just fine.

[JonBinNV]

02:39 AM on 02/25/2011

Bible says that being gay is wrong. If you don't believe the Bible, then do what you want - it is not up to me to force you to do anything. But don't use the Bible and mis-quote it for your own purposes.

I would hope there would be another way to get the rights that gays deserve without using a religious institution to do it.

[JShankel]

02:55 AM on 02/25/2011

The Bible also says that remarriage after divorce is wrong.  Jesus specifically says that.  He never says anything about being gay.  Can't help but notice that no one is all pushed out of shape that second marriages "redefine the traditional meaning of marriage."

Jesus HIMSELF said you may not remarry after divorce.  So, where's the constitutional amendment banning second marriages?   When is that coming up for a vote?

[Contact1972]

04:50 AM on 02/25/2011

What does the bible say about the computer youre using to type with? And doesn't the bible also say divorce is a no no? How about not being allowed to wear two different types of cloth, or not being allowed to eat shellfish-but I guess youre just another cafeteria christian-picking and choosing what works for you.

[Justjack1]

03:41 AM on 02/25/2011

Really? The Bible? You do know thats just a book with a plethora of vague guidelines to life. That if you read it from cover to cover it will contradict itself on every point. It is left open for the interpretation of the reader.

[20free10]

07:07 AM on 02/25/2011

keep believing that, but remember this when your standing in line with the radical Islam and he finds out it's not Virgins but 72 Virginians, you might reconsider your position on the bible

[ElenaOfJersey]

07:12 PM on 02/25/2011

That was kind of my point.

[demc7]

11:55 PM on 02/24/2011

why the hell didn't they do this when they had a majority in BOTH houses???? This is pure tokenism for 2012

[fishin4u]

11:22 PM on 02/24/2011

What would happen if this administration said "we will no longer defend the civil rights law passed in 1965, because it is unconstitutional" ? ? ?
We are a nation of laws............

FISH...................

[Blue neck]

11:24 PM on 02/24/2011

umm then it would be up to the courts to decide without administration input.... what did you think would happen???

[fishin4u]

11:30 PM on 02/24/2011

So why is this administration overstepping the grounds of the judicial branch ???

FISH..............

[dimplasm]

11:26 PM on 02/24/2011

Try some new bait. It doesn't say defend. It says support.

[ber6964]

11:12 PM on 02/24/2011

Why are Religious Peoples so Scared of Everything???

[JShankel]

11:14 PM on 02/24/2011

For the same reason people who are scared of everything are so religious.

[dimplasm]

11:15 PM on 02/24/2011

Nice!

[ber6964]

11:16 PM on 02/24/2011

Profound.

[dimplasm]

11:24 PM on 02/24/2011

Because that is what religion exists on. Oh, there are many religious people who find positive things in religion and actually live like they believe it, but not this crowd. Not those who h8. H8 and religion together make no sense.

[JShankel]

11:11 PM on 02/24/2011

Anyway, this is starting to get tedious.  Clearly there will be various propositions 8, various acts of "defense" of teh marriage, various court decisions and reversals and reversals of reversals, various mutli hundred million dollar "51% majority" elections on the slow, agonizing, pointless march to inevitiable acceptance.

Look at the demographics, conservatives.  Just look.  For once in you lives, look at where things are going to go.  50 years ago conservatives (mostly Democrats at that time, yes, this is not a partisan thing) were siccing dogs on their own population because they didn't want to drink out of the water fountains or attend the same schools.

Nowadays you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative anywhere near the mainstream who would argue for segregation. 

So, look at the demos.  The young overwhelmingly support gay marriage, the old overwhelmingly oppose.  Tick tock.  We're already at the point where all these elections you keep crowing about are being decided by, like six point margins.  53% to 47% and such.

Now, that might be a wide margin for Democrats vs. Repbulicans, both of whom enjoy a good deal of electoral support, but considering that not even the GAY COMMUNITY was too hot on the idea of gay marriage 20 years ago, well, did you ever take calculus?  First order derivative is very negative on your support function.  You may wanna jump off the train.

So, tell you what, can we just skip ahead to the part where guys start taking credit for gay rights?  We'll even let you keep pointing out that Bill Clinton signed all these laws.

For more on past versions of this, see "Was A Republican You Know comma King comma Martin Luther."

[Knowitall]

12:01 AM on 02/25/2011

Tedious? Yes.

[Eris23Skidoo]

06:15 PM on 02/25/2011

Rand Paul argued FOR segregation during his campaign and then he actually won. That just proves that Tennesseeans are by and large racist pigs.

[gayandmarried]

11:04 PM on 02/24/2011

mormons spent 50 MILLION DOLLARS to promote prop 8

I will NEVER forgive them, and neither will God

[Contact1972]

11:13 PM on 02/24/2011

Did you happen to catch

Prop 8: The Mormon Proposition

[ElenaOfJersey]

12:04 AM on 02/25/2011

In theatres Tuesday.

[Stealthboxer]

10:51 PM on 02/24/2011

So with that shortsighted mentality I should tell my sister and her partner that they are "less" than my wife and I?
My sister has every right to be happy and have her wedding with family and friends just like my wife and I did. If you don't agree with it fine, but what goes on in one's home or bedroom is not to be JUDGED by you or any other bigots out there. No one is asking anyone to force you to marry a same sex person, just RESPECT the choices of those that do!

[rowdiman]

10:50 PM on 02/24/2011

If you disagree with affording gay marriages being granted the same rights as same-sex, please answer this for me:

In what way does this "lessen" the sanctimony of your marriage.? If you have a strong and loving commitment within your own, how does this affect you?

I can't seem to get a good answer on this one from those protesting this.

[JShankel]

10:55 PM on 02/24/2011

I think you mean the "sanctity."

[rowdiman]

11:09 PM on 02/24/2011

Thank you.. letting my emotions get before my typing.

[lexkw]

11:32 PM on 02/24/2011

Less than 6 months after the Mass. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, the Catholic Church was taken to court to be forced to handle adoptions for married same-sex couples. The state legislature refused an exemption and so rather than go against their religious beliefs, the church discontinued handling adoptions in Massachusetts. Whether you agree with this decision or not, it affected a lot of people living in Massachusetts who were not a part of this whole battle.

Quite frankly, I really don't care if two people of the same sex get married. However, when you change an underlying assumption for the thousands of laws on the books, you're going to get a lot of unintended consequences, just like you saw in Mass.

[JShankel]

01:02 AM on 02/25/2011

Foster placement is taxpayer supported.  You want to participate in taxpayer-supported activities, you get to put your Big Boy panties on and play like an adult.

And to the Catholics credit, they have:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2006/feb/06022010

"Catholic Charities of Boston, has already placed children with same-sex couples over the past 20 years...Catholic Charities of Boston said it has placed 13 of 720 adopted children with same-sex couples in the past 20 years."

This was a cynical emotional blackmail maneuver on the part of the church.  Catholics of conscience are ignoring it.

[Loyd Hawkins]

08:42 AM on 02/25/2011

Blame the church then. They are the ones who CHOSE to discontinue adoptions, they are the ones you should be upset with.