iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Democrats Aim For DOMA Repeal

Frank

First Posted: 03/16/11 02:23 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:40 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Democrats launched a repeal effort against the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, introducing companion bills in both chambers of Congress to end the law and mounting a messaging effort to argue that same-sex marriage strengthens the American family.

The bill, coined the Respect for Marriage Act, would end DOMA, the 1996 law that banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage even if a couple has been married under state law. The legislation comes on the heels of a February announcement from the Obama administration that the Department of Justice will no longer defend DOMA in court.

As the fight over gay marriage plays out through the judiciary, gay-rights advocates in Congress aim to capitalize on growing public support for an end to DOMA to push for a more immediate solution.

Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) partnered with the four openly gay members of Congress, Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.), plus more than 100 cosponsors on the legislation, which is slated for formal introduction Wednesday afternoon.

In the Senate, the DOMA repeal effort will be led by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), with about 20 cosponsors signaling support.

The bill faces a steep climb in the House, where Republican leaders announced earlier this month that they will step in to defend DOMA as the Justice Department ends its involvement.

Sponsors of the repeal effort in the House acknowledged that they likely face an uphill climb in a Republican-led chamber, but said public polls and actions by some Republicans show the tide is turning. Slightly more than half of voters oppose DOMA, while only 34 percent support it, according to a poll released on Tuesday by the gay-marriage advocacy group Human Rights Campaign and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. The poll also indicated that 54 percent of voters oppose House leadership's decision to defend DOMA.

Frank said the decision to defend the controversial law was made to keep Republican members from having to make a potentially-damaging vote on the issue.

"The movement is clearly in our direction," Frank said at a press conference. "Some of us were here a few years ago and Republicans ... were eager to give their members a chance to vote against same-sex marriage. Today, they are eager to protect their members against same-sex marriage."

Meanwhile, the centrist Democratic advocacy group Third Way is circulating a memo around the Hill suggesting ways for congressional supporters of DOMA repeal to speak about same-sex marriage. The messaging emphasizes family values, such as love and commitment, that transcend sexual orientation.

"Gay and lesbian couples may seem different from straight couples, but we all share similar values -- like the importance of family and helping out our neighbors; worries -- like making ends meet or the possibility of losing a job; and hopes and dreams -- like finding that special someone to grow old with, and standing in front of friends and family to make a lifetime commitment," the memo reads.

At a press conference to announce the repeal bill, House Democrats emphasized those same points, calling on couples and widows who were legally married in their state but denied rights affording to heterosexual couples under the law. Edie Windsor, 81, spoke about her 44-year relationship with Thea Spyer. When Spyer died in 2008, Windsor paid more than $360,000 in federal estate taxes because the government did not recognize their marriage. She is now the plaintiff in an American Civil Liberties Union-backed lawsuit to combat the law.

Windsor, like the Democrats who introduced the repeal bill, said she thinks the Obama administration's decision to stop defending DOMA could make ending the law easier.

"It looks like right now my legal fight is far from over," she said. "But ... I think our chances of defeating DOMA are becoming more and more possible."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Democrats launched a repeal effort against the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, introducing companion bills in both chambers of Congress to end the law and mounting a messaging effo...
WASHINGTON -- Democrats launched a repeal effort against the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, introducing companion bills in both chambers of Congress to end the law and mounting a messaging effo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,199
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (21 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doctorJulia
Retired NASA engineer
11:41 AM on 03/27/2011
One point in this debate has never been discussed to my knowledge. The DOMA does not define the terms "man" and "woman". You may think this is obvious but how do you classify transsexuals? Are they their birth gender or their after-change gender? How about people who are born with ambiguous sex organs. Will everybody who wants to get married have to undergo a detailed medical examination to make sure they are the right gender? These are not trivial concerns and I know right now about a transgender friend who is caught up in this insanity.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ronald Mc Donald
Attorney
04:45 PM on 03/28/2011
I would say you can classify them as altered and abnormal freaks! How about that ?
12:36 PM on 03/31/2011
Vile!
06:32 PM on 03/21/2011
Why exactly should married people get special rights in the first place. Why is it the governments place to further this failed institution?
09:47 PM on 03/25/2011
Well, basically, it's because the Gub'mint is in charge of the LAWS. Legal entwinements are affected by marital status,like it or not. From divorce, alimony, custody (legal entities set up BECAUSE marriages fail), to taxation (joint filings, dependancies, etc.), to not having to testify against one's spouse in a court of law, to inheritance laws, immigration laws (sponsorship of a foreign spouse, departation), insurance coverage, hospital visitation, well in fact, the whole of society.

Thanx 4 askin'.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ronald Mc Donald
Attorney
10:22 PM on 03/25/2011
If you don't like it move to Russia!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ronald Mc Donald
Attorney
12:47 AM on 03/18/2011
Time to go back in the closet Barney the Frank!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Angel1999
Microbiologist & Historian
11:15 PM on 03/19/2011
Why would he do that?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ronald Mc Donald
Attorney
10:17 PM on 03/25/2011
So parents wouldn't have to deal with his abnormal sexual behavior for one. Apparently you do not have children.
09:47 PM on 03/25/2011
Closets are for clothes, not people. YOU try living in one.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Neenerpuss
If you cant laugh at yourself...someone else will
11:55 PM on 03/17/2011
"If a man lie with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

No where in that verse does it forbid gay sex. It just says they can not do it the same way.

Like saying
"You can not take your Ford out on UK roads as the way you do on US roads. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood will be upon them."


No one is forbidding you from driving your Ford, just know the rules of the road.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
WheelsOnFire
Equality Crusader
11:22 PM on 03/17/2011
Here's a fitting analogy.

The Christianistas get concerned that if I marry my same-sex partner, somehow their marriage will be threatened.

OK...let's say we invite a Christianista couple to dinner one evening, and they admire the color of the paint on our dining room wall -- so much so that they want exactly the same thing for their dining room walls.

Should my partner and I immediately run out and press for the Defense of Benjamin Moore Candlelight Glow Paint? I mean, really, if a straight couple should ever put that color on their dining room walls, well, our dining room walls will be so diminished. Oh the harm. Oh the travesty. Our lives will never be the same.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
knight7se7en
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger....
09:53 PM on 03/21/2011
Excellent analogy. Kudos.
09:56 PM on 03/25/2011
Or, if you have roast pork for dinner, it's like your neighbor's roast beef dinner is "under attack". That difference is seen as a "threat". Beef is "undermined" by pork, since pork is "unnatural" and "abnormal" - a veritable "aberration", not to mention an "abomination" to God-fearin' BEEF eaters everywhere. Having pork is like wanting to "marry your sister". Surely someone will wnat the "right" to "marry" a pig. Some "activist" 'pro-poly-porkers will want to eat TWO pork dinners.

"Won't someone think of the CHILDREN?" Surely pork-eating "leads" to "child-molestation. Beef is "normal" and pork is "sick". Pork-eaters should bow down and pray for a "cure" for their "sins".

Und so weiter.
photo
WheelsOnFire
Equality Crusader
11:15 PM on 03/17/2011
As much as I would like to see DOMA repealed, it simply isn't going to happen with Republican control of the House.

We're going to have to let the courts do what the Republicans in Congress won't do -- that is, to end discrimination and bigotry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balancement
Timendi causa est nescire. -- Seneca
11:02 PM on 03/17/2011
Wow. There must have been one heckuva sale on spines in Washington, DC!

I hope there's a good, strong warranty that comes along with each one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ldcook
Gay Harvard Grad
10:54 AM on 03/17/2011
Another Myth:

6) But repealing DOMA will weaken the foundation of my marriage!

Well, as I am not involved in your marriage, I suppose it is possible I can't know. If your marriage is so weak that someone you don't know being allowed to get married effects your marriage then maybe you shouldn't be married to begin with. If your marriage has any strength at all, my getting married will have ZERO effect on you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Gay Pagan Man, Living Happily With Husband
07:51 PM on 03/17/2011
Thank you. Wish I could fan you again! If their marriages are so weak that our being able to get married threatens them, they are truly pitiful.
photo
WheelsOnFire
Equality Crusader
11:16 PM on 03/17/2011
Well said!

Fanned & faved!
photo
groland
socially left, fiscally right
10:43 AM on 03/17/2011
Someone please explain to me why Steve and John getting married and living next door is going to threaten my marriage? I have been married for 24 years and don't see how the repeal of DOMA is going to change that. Funny, how many supporters of DOMA are on their second or third marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mercury613
In the blue TV screen light
01:20 PM on 03/17/2011
No one has ever been able to explain that.

No one.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CharlesW299
I could take offence, but that would make no sense
06:09 PM on 03/17/2011
It is obvious -
In the same way that hanging out with tall people make you taller...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
KenClay
REPEAL DOMA
08:02 AM on 03/17/2011
Go Find some Trolls in the republican't party to pick on..
photo
Captain Hindsight
Seeking the truth is my only agenda.
07:31 AM on 03/17/2011
The basic question to be asked should be:
Is marriage a Legal or Religious institution.
If it is a Legal institution then anyone over the age of 18 can legally enter into whatever contract they are willing to.
If it is a Religious institution then should should not be any intervention by the government on what constitutes marriage.
In either case the laws should not grant extra privileges to a sub-set of individuals so all legal benefits accrued to "married" couples should be rescinded and everyone treated as an individual regardless of their contracted living arrangements.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
12:35 PM on 03/17/2011
In fact, it is both. More accurately, it is two different things.
 
(Civil) Marriage is a social institution that creates certain benefits for society. It solidifies a family unit that recognizes and promotes what most believe is the most advantageous method of coupling (long term pairing based on the extended length of maturation of offspring). In modern times it also helps simplify several legal requirements, responsibilities, and priveleges that are inherent to our society. For those reasons, and others, it is considered good for society and worthy of benefits.
 
(Religious) Marriage is the idea that a marriage is ordained and accepted by God. A sociologist view is that it is a religious concept that has grown out of the social concept. Either way, it is a religious point of view that sees marriage as something uniquely spiritual.
 
Although related, these to concepts exist independently. The Catholic Church is not required to recognize the religious side of my marriage. In fact, any Catholic who has been divorced and remarried without annulment sees this. At the same time, the government is not bound to recognize the religious side of a marriage (ask a poIygamist).
 
The quicker religious people realize that the government is not really recognizing that God considers married people to married, the quicker the argument about samesex (civil) marriage will end.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CharlesW299
I could take offence, but that would make no sense
06:21 PM on 03/17/2011
Religion has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with my marriage.
I don’t care what the Catholic church thinks of my marriage, and I afford them the same right regarding what they think about my marriage.
If they can dictate the terms of my marriage, then I want to dictate the terms of their marriages.
If you want to make religion a part of your marriage - fine, but leave me out of it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bwestleyj
Not a Zero-Sum Gamer..
01:53 AM on 03/17/2011
GO FOR IT!

Keep pressing until this legislation gets passed...perservance is the key to victory.
01:01 AM on 03/17/2011
i expected so much from democratic reps, when they contol both house , to finally repeal this DOMA and all the hateful bills , especially this DOMA that Clinton signed into law,,,, but nothing happen, all they democrats are offering all the time is.a little of this and that meanwhile the GLBT communty is suffering, families are torn apart, dreams broken, americans exiled, and more,, ..
So forgive me for not believe this act they are doing, to make sure they still get votes,,.. i just have no idea how they can pull this off when they are outnumbered in the house of rep,. .
11:53 AM on 03/17/2011
tatosonny,

You are incorrect to say taht under the Democrat control of both house[s] "nothing happen[ed]". Did you forget about DADT? the order for hospitals to allow same-gender partners hospital visits? The hate crimes legislation? Allowing same-gender spouses of diplomats equal treatment?

Yes, DOMA (etc.) ARE "hateful bills" - and they are daily being exposed as such by stories like Edie Windsor's. Yes, families ARE bing torn apart. These are very personal tragedies, and I hold anti-gay, anti-equality Teapublicans to account for theri UN-COnstitutional votes on other peoples' rights - an obscenity in a country that calls itself the "Land of the FREE". The 'right sh!ts on some people's freedoms, and that is why you are wrong to 'blame' the Dems.
02:38 PM on 03/17/2011
correction noted, and of course i did not forget that they (Dem, rep) repealed and pass many important issue, but for me DOMA, is the root of all the inequalities that GLBT is getting, from marriage to recognations of our rights, as not only american citizen, but also as humans, as people.
I dont want to throw the blame on teapublicans, and any other anti-gay,hate people, uncivilized ,they will always be driven by hate, and its sad as i know they will remain like that, the problem was they were given teeth by a democratic president, he could have vetoed the bill (DOMA), but did not, he said he has to,. how can a person compromised a civil rights of a minority,civil rights of an american citizen ,civil rights of a human,,

for clarification,,,, I am so proud of what the democratic houses has done,, especially repealing DADT, and i wish that they will stay in control of senate regain the house and obama in WH,.

i am just frustrated , i just dont know how this will work, introducing a repeal of DOMA in a house under republican, i just dont want to be given false hope,,,maybe somebody can explain to the chances of ths bill,.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coloradem
Christian, Gay, Democrat
12:33 PM on 03/17/2011
Spot on. Democrats don't want this law repealed or they would have introduced it when they controlled both houses of congress and could have actually passed it. They want to toss the LGBT community a bone in hopes that we will forget their inaction on this come November 2012 and toss them our votes and money (which many of us withheld in 2010 elections when they lost a record number of seats across the country). Here in Colorado, the Democrats in the state legislature are doing the same thing...they had the House, the Senate and the Governor's office for the last four years and took no action on civil unions; they lose the house in November, and suddenly a civil unions bill is introduced ONE MONTH after Republicans take contol of the chamber.

They don't want legislation. They want an issue to get our votes.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
12:49 PM on 03/17/2011
undefined
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
12:53 PM on 03/17/2011
They introduced this bill first in 2009 and tried again in 2010.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ldcook
Gay Harvard Grad
11:01 PM on 03/16/2011
Another Myth:

5) But the public should vote on it! We ARE a democracy after all!
Wrong, there is this great document called the Constitution that applies to all in the USA, that has the equal protection clause. This means that no matter how much anyone hates another individual, as long as they don't break the law, they are entitled to the same protections and rights under the law. Regardless of any vote.

Also we are a Democratic-Republic where we elect representatives for the various bodies of the government (also we elect electors who vote FOR us for president).

So in sum, no we shouldn't vote on equal rights. That is absurd and frankly just another tactic being thrown up to delay equality.