Rep. Brad Miller Signs On To DOMA Repeal After North Carolina Pushes Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

WASHINGTON -- North Carolina Republicans pushing for a state ban on same-sex marriage may be dismayed to know that their efforts have galvanized opposition from a U.S. congressman from their state.

Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) has decided to fight for federal marriage equality because of the Republican push to ban it in North Carolina. He told the Advocate on Wednesday that he would become a cosponsor of the federal legislation to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman.

Under the federal law, states are allowed to not recognize valid same-sex unions performed in other states. Same-sex couples are also denied federal benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples, such as joint filing of taxes, spousal benefits under Social Security and health and pension benefits.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, will announce the addition of both Miller and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, as cosponsors to the Respect for Marriage Act on Thursday, according to the congressman's spokesman Ilan Kayatsky. On Tuesday, Reps. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) and Tim Walz (D-Minn.) were added as cosponsors.

The number of cosponsors of the House legislation, with the new additions, stands at a record 124 lawmakers, surpassing the 120 reached during the last Congress, when the bill was introduced.

"The federal government should not play a role in restricting marriage. Marriage should be left to states to create and interpret marriage laws. The Respect for Marriage Act would allow the federal government to defer to the states by recognizing their laws and also provide all of the federal rights, benefits, and responsibilities associated with marriage," said Smith, who also was a strong advocate for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, in a statement to The Huffington Post. "I do not believe same-sex marriage equality is a threat to the institution of marriage. I believe our society is made stronger by more committed and stable relationships, and we should encourage that.”

"For a couple who has been married legally, every state should be required to give full faith and credit," said Miller. "North Carolina would still not be required to perform civil marriage, but it would be required to [recognize] marriages performed in other states."

Next May, North Carolina residents will vote on whether to amend their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. GOP legislators fast-tracked the legislation and pushed it through the statehouse in just a matter of days.

Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in North Carolina, but that prohibition is not written into the state's constitution.

Miller told the Advocate that he had not previously considered cosponsoring the legislation to repeal DOMA.

On Wednesday, the congressman went on MSNBC and explained that the new North Carolina law could have far-reaching effects.

"North Carolina law already prohibits same-sex marriage, and this would not change the application of the law," he said. "But this amendment goes even further and would prohibit private employers even from providing benefits to same-sex couples. North Carolinians know that goes too far and there is a lot of opposition to that."

President Obama still does not publicly support marriage equality, although he has given his backing to the Respect for Marriage Act.

On the North Carolina amendment, White House spokesman Shin Inouye told the Washington Blade that Obama opposes the Republican effort.

"While the President does not weigh in on every single action taken by legislative bodies in our country, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples," he said. "The President believes strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away."

This story has been updated with comment from Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.).

Comments

[jeffie 3]

11:03 AM on 09/17/2011

I think it is h@rrible that some still stand in the way of civil and human rights in this country. If two people love and care for one another, let them be happy together. Let them grow old together. Let them have all the same rights and privileges that the rest of us enjoy. I really don't know how anyone can refuse someone, something they enjoy themselves. NO one is above anyone else.

[libobstruction]

09:35 PM on 09/16/2011

Let'em get married so they'll stop stop crying about it already.....it's just getting old and preachy by now. See Jason, I want to give you guys equal rights....so we're cool right?

[NikitaAhn]

05:19 AM on 10/04/2011

Yes, god forbid we fight for the right to be treated as equal human beings under the law. Striving for civil rights and the repeal of discriminatory laws does not equal whining or "crying about it." I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if someone decided to treat YOU like a second-class citizen.

[margiebe]

04:11 PM on 09/16/2011

It is sad that those in the southern part of this country still do not comprehend that discrimination is illegal-Same sex couples can have families(in vitro fertilization surrogates-just ask Sarah Jessica Parker) When the heterosexual population decides that a 60% divorce rate is too high and reALLy commits to marriage and really think that marriage is sacred revisit the conversation-But marriages are tossed aside like yesterday's leftovers-so stop the indignation-It is all false

[bannorhill]

03:34 PM on 09/18/2011

Sa­me sex couples can have families?

When have two men ever produced offspring?

[RutherfordLaser]

04:09 PM on 09/18/2011

Adoption. Keep playing dumb though, it suits you.

[margiebe]

04:28 PM on 09/18/2011

See the reply below rutherford

[margiebe]

04:10 PM on 09/18/2011

There is something called in-vitro fertilization where you take sperm and mix it with an egg in the lab and then this is implanted into a woman's uterus-Men use their sperm find an egg donor then use a surrogate to carry the baby(a great thing for all those frozen eggs waiting for a home) This is the family they create and want dearly That is how 2 men have a family(as infertile couples us the same procedure to have a family they dearly want)

[Pogopark]

09:47 AM on 09/16/2011

Courts "overturn", legislators "repeal".

[AnotherTry]

09:02 AM on 09/16/2011

I get a big kick out of the anti-gay side telling everybody that being gay is a choice. Do they realize they are outing themselves as bisexuals? Only people who are attracted to both genders have a choice. And if you are bothered about your bisexual orientation, instead of attacking non-bisexuals, maybe you should just get some therapy.

[nicenissey]

10:30 AM on 09/16/2011

Or just plain "get some"!

[Atwill]

09:49 PM on 09/16/2011

I hve always thought this. the only people with a choice are bi.

[Alexander Gunther]

08:58 AM on 09/16/2011

"The churches will regulate themselves!" (Screamed with an angry and heavy southern accent)

[katylied]

08:52 AM on 09/16/2011

Again, how many jobs does this create?

[jaye27]

09:46 AM on 09/16/2011

Actually, if same sex couples were allowed to marry, I would think it would directly effect any 'wedding' related businesses: florists, caterers, venues, printers, hotels, etc. So, theoretically, it could create jobs.

[nicenissey]

10:36 AM on 09/16/2011

Not just in theory. Have you seen the article on wedding planners coming to NY state (from Connecticut and other NE states) after marriage equality passed there?

Gays & lesbians.
New York (esp the City).
Marriage.

It must feel like fashion week there!

[Atwill]

08:39 AM on 09/16/2011

i still say we should allow gay marriage, but have all marraiges put up to a vote. when you are issed the license, your info is put into a big data base and we all, all Ameican citizens get to vote. Based in what we like about your bios. Your history, background, religion, education level, job...etc... If 51 % or more say no, you can not marry. this might stop some of these insane quicky vegas weddings.

[margiebe]

04:14 PM on 09/16/2011

You know it is no one's business If 2 people are committed to each other let them marry-It is good for their kids to have a stable home(as stable as any of us are)

[David N Taiwan]

09:33 PM on 09/18/2011

Man, that is a much bigger plan than what I envisioned. I was thinking more along the lines of "Neighborhood Watch Groups," you know what I mean? The kind of groups that have neighbors volunteering to peek out their windows and keep tabs on what's going on in their neighborhood. Rather than putting everyone's marriage up for a vote, these local groups could grant the marriage licenses. I'm sure the R-party would be in favor of this kind of local control. One of the requirements for the marriage license to be granted, however, would be for the couple to swear under oath they would produce a child within a specified period of time, say three years. If they didn't then their license would be revoked.

This wouldn't be a "redefinition" of marriage. This would be an enforcement of traditional marriage.

All in favor, say "I do" and "Amen."

[Atwill]

09:51 PM on 09/18/2011

I like it. We can call it the Gladys Kravists law/ group. I have often thought of putting that "You must have a child in 2 years" requirement in mine. in fact, we should test all women to see if they can have kids and if they can not, they can not marry. After all, what good are they? Ok, they can be nuns.

[TeraWatt60]

08:07 AM on 09/16/2011

Just another attempt to drive the bi.gots to the polls next November

[annekeb68]

05:08 PM on 09/17/2011

And if that's the vote they have to count on then what does that tell you about what they really have to offer in the way of governing?

[TeraWatt60]

06:29 PM on 09/17/2011

Exactly, they know that they can only get a majority by suppressing the Democratic vote and by driving the "Bubbas and Earlenes"  to the polls to vote against their interests because of fear or bi.gotry

[Cathy Moore Casper]

07:38 AM on 09/16/2011

I am from North Carolina and although Brad Miller is not my representative (darn it), I am still proud of him for this. Not all North Carolinians are for this horrible state constitution amendment at all. I had the pleasure of making Mr. Miller's acquaintance when I worked at the YMCA and he frequented there. I am glad to have him in Washington.

[neighborhoodmole]

03:54 PM on 09/16/2011

Brace yourself for a carpet bombing of TV ads full of lies as the election gets closer. They will try to scare independent voters into passing this evil amendment by spreading outrageous claims that gay marriage will threaten everyone's children. That is how the haters passed (by a slim margin) prop 8 in California, last minute ads were shown with documentary style interviews making it look like actual testimonials of young school children being forced to attend gay weddings. It was a hoax but by the time the truth about the ads came out, it was too late, enough people panicked and voted for it. There is no legal requirement to tell the truth in ads, freedom of speech means freedom to lie, so expect big lies from the backers of this hateful amendment.

[StevenKeirstead]

07:50 PM on 09/16/2011

Sadly, I'm sure you will be proven right. Hopefully people will resist the lies like Washington State did in 2009 in passing Referendum 71, but in the Bible Belt it could be a long shot to win this vote.

[beerguy]

07:07 AM on 09/16/2011

Put it on state ballots. So far, the left has been unsuccessful in passing any gay marriage issue when it has been VOTED on by the people. Remember the 10th amendment

[Atwill]

07:30 AM on 09/16/2011

why cant we put ALL marriages on a ballot. everyone, gay or straight, puts their marraige proposel on a ballot and we all get to vote. on individual marraiges.

[RutherfordLaser]

07:53 AM on 09/16/2011

Your micro bio is pretty ironic when attached to a post calling for restriction of freedom, wouldn't you say?

[Jced]

08:07 AM on 09/16/2011

"Live Free or Die"..... BUT only in the way me and my friends say is ok!

Sad, really.

[katylied]

08:53 AM on 09/16/2011

most pubs are irony deficient.

[Alexander Gunther]

05:06 AM on 09/16/2011

I still don't see how gay marriage bans can be considered legal. The hypocrisy of right-wing conservatives really confuses me sometimes. Smaller government *should* conflict with federal & state gay marriage bans. In their perfect world, one *would* think that the gay marriage dilemma *should* be left up to individual churches to decide whether or not they want to perform them.

[jaye27]

09:53 AM on 09/16/2011

I agree. On the one hand, I wish it would hurry and get to the Supreme Court, but...considering the members, I fear they will actually deem it constitutional. It's so simple to me, that a group is being denied rights others enjoy, simply because they don't fit into a religious ideology.

[Alexander Gunther]

09:59 AM on 09/16/2011

I wouldn't trust this Supreme Court with anything that involves moving this country forward positively.

[mtnlife96]

11:57 PM on 09/15/2011

As an NC resident facing the bigot ballet in May, it didn't seem that things could worse with our state "legislature". As a resident of the Asheville area, it did when one of the reps. (from outside this area) referred to the city as "a cesspool of perversion." Sure wish he'd visit here before people cool off!

[StevenKeirstead]

07:56 PM on 09/16/2011

As a gay guy who grew up in nearby Brevard I have to say Asheville is a great place. Good luck from Boston on this upcoming vote.

[FantasticFourFan]

11:10 PM on 09/15/2011

There is no difference between having a problem with homosexuality and having a problem with someone's skin color. It is still persecuting someone for the way they were born.

[llisa]

10:26 PM on 09/15/2011

I'm sorry for your tragic experience. But "pedophile" and "homosexual" are not interchangeable words. In fact, most pedophiles are heterosexual. Using your logic, should we ban heterosexual marriage?

Pedophilia is not OK.

Homosexuality is obviously not OK with you. But other people's marriages do not affect you in any way. And they most certainly do not affect the behavior of pedophiles.

[traceymarie]

04:05 PM on 09/16/2011

he is a lying thumper...I have seen this crap with diffrent names many times.....

[nicenissey]

10:52 PM on 09/15/2011

I'm sorry, but after reading your blog, I've come to the conclusion that while what happened to you is very, very wrong, you are using it as a platform to spread hate.

As Ilisa already said, your logic is flawed.

"The statements I’m making are candid, but because of what happened to me and the untold victims who think they don’t have a voice, I have every right to say what I do. I want to make you think about what has been done and its effect on the culture we have now become." A direct quote from your blog.

You have every right to exercise your belief system. I do not share it, but I will respect it. But for "some reason", you have this misconstrued notion that for people to respect you, you must be allowed to impose onto others. It's not a one-way street.

I do not believe in the god that you are talking about in your blog. I will not disrespect this god of yours. I do not believe in religion, but I do have a personal relationship with my god. I won't talk about my faith to others unless I need to differentiate my belief system from others'.