Coming Out for DOMA Repeal

In 1996, the 104th Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, a misnamed legislative boondoggle which enshrined discrimination into federal law. Now, Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY), along with 76 House sponsors, will introduce legislation to overturn that law. Whether it passes in the 111th Congress or in a future Congress is uncertain. What is certain is that this effort -- to strike state-sanctioned discrimination from the federal code -- is the right thing to do.

Many of us, no matter our sexual orientation, believe that marriage should be a legal commitment between two adults. The notion that marriage is threatened by legally sanctioned relationships because of sexual orientation is patently absurd. Three important points need to be made. First, marriages (and weddings) are not purely religious events and anyone who thinks they are has never been to Las Vegas. Second, marriage confers many legal rights (health benefits, taxes, property rights, parental rights, inheritance, etc.) which are denied to those who are not permitted to marry. Third, and finally, it is inherently discriminatory that couples who marry in Iowa are treated as if they are not married when visiting the state of Utah, or some other state where such discrimination is legal.

This is the United States of America.

Repeal of DOMA is a crucial first step to eliminating discrimination and ensuring marriage equality. It has the full support of Americans for Democratic Action, the nation's historic advocacy group opposing discrimination and supporting full economic and social justice. And it's time other allied organizations, anyone who calls themselves a progressive -- straight or gay -- to come out of the closet and support marriage equality.

In 1963, it was one of the founders of ADA, Walter Reuther, who led the UAW into the civil rights movement. He actually spoke at the historic march where Dr. King gave the "I have a dream speech." While his words did not echo through history in the same way, his actions were significant in helping to change America. It showed the world the Civil Rights Movement was indeed a movement with a broad coalition of supporters sharing one common goal. It was necessary to accomplish real and lasting change. Repeal of DOMA fits into that same historic narrative; the LGBT community shouldn't have to fight this battle alone.

Comments

[annfromdc]

Right on, Brother Wilson. I was not aware that Americans for Democratic Action was a strong supporter of marriage equality, but it certainly fits with your history. I hope other not specifically GLBT organizations will follow suit. This is an important civil rights issue for all of us, gay or straight.

[Liberal Angel]

DOMA is a legal abomination. It's made discrimination a virtue, and respect for the Constitution a vice. DOMA violates Article lV (Full Faith and Credit), Amendment 5 (Due Process, Equal Protection), Amendment 10 in forcing a federal definition of marriage and the word "spouse" on all the States, and Amendment 14 (Due Process, Equal Protection). Also I would argue that it violates Amendment 14 on the basis of the Citizenship Clause. In Saenz v. Roe, the SCOTUS found that there is a right to travel. Part of that decision states that citizens from one state can relocate to another state and enjoy ALL the rights of the residents of that state. That would mean that married gay couples should be able to relocate to any state and have the same rights as a straight married couple living there. I think the Priviledges and Immunities Clause also lends its weight to the anti-DOMA side. When will people stop feeling they can legislate away tax paying citizens' rights?

[John Bisceglia]

"When will people stop feeling they can legislate away tax paying citizens' rights?"

WHEN WE REVOLT.

I.R.S. tax revolt, business boycotts, and possibly confronting those churches who harm us DIRECTLY. If ignorant religious bullies can steal my family's earned pension (theft), bring trauma into our lives and even disabilities (it sure feels like violence), I think we need to respond in kind. I am certain that more violence will be around the corner, because with things like PROP 8 and now REF-71 and the fight in Maine - many of us have HAD ENOUGH!

[Romulus]

I'm in favor of legalizing SSM so what I'm about to say only has to do with the legal, not the moral aspects. I believe that the only reason that DOMA is unconstitutional is that Sec III violates the 10th amendment. Consider this:

In 1967, the Warren Court ruled in Loving that marriage is a basic civil right. In 1972, that same Warren Court ruled in Baker that it was not. What? How can that be? The legal definition of "civil rights" is "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."

In 1972, the Minnesota Supreme court essential ruled that is was not unconstitutional to limit marriage to one woman and one man and went on to say: The Minnesota Supreme Court goes on to say: “This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which the petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.” The court goes on to conclude “We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

...continued

[Lance734]

I love readingyour posts, by the way, though we often disagree on our legal interpretations.

That being said, when you try to cite for precedential value of a case wuch as Baker v. MN, you have to remember that dismissals for lack of substantial federal questions don't carry the exact same weight as a full opinion of the SCOTUS, after full briefing and oral arguments. Part of that is because such dismissals (being one sentence long) do not contain any reasoning or an exact holding to provide guidance to lower courts or to future sessions of the SCOTUS in considering future cases. It can only be binding as to the precise question presented. Trust me, there is no way the court would ever conclude that its summary dismissal in Baker overruled long-standing precedent, going back to the late 1800s culminating in Loving v. VA just 5 years earlier, that marriage is a fundamental civil right. That's just too broad of a claim that one can't extrapolate from a one-sentence dismissal order.

[Lance734]

Plus, don't foget that there have been doctrinal developments in the past 30-plus years that seriously undercut the broad precedential value of Baker, such as 1987's Zablocki v. Redhail (SCOTUS reaffirmed marriage is a fundamental civil right for all individuals), 1977's Dept of Agriculture v. Moreno (bare desire to harm unpopular group not even a legitimate governmental interest), 1996's Romer v. Evans (same, but as applied specifically to LGBT folks), and 2003's Lawrence v. TX (LGBTs protected by substantive component of due process clause's liberty guarantee & moral disapproval alone is an insufficient governmental interest to satisfy lowest level of review for constitutionality). This doesn't mean the SCOTUS doesn't have the prerogative to affirm the 1972 Baker case if it wants to, but it'll have to jump through some logical & intellectual hoops in explaining away the force of these more recent cases in doing so. Given the conservative Roberts Court, I wouldn't put it past them, though.

[Romulus]

...continued

SCOTUS dismissed the appeal of Baker v. Nelson for "lack of a substative federal question." If the Minnesota law in question violated the U.S. Constitution, it WOULD be a substantive federal question. Therefore, since the Berger Court concurred that marriage rights did not apply to SS couples, it nullifyed it's ruling that marriage is a basic civil right because civil rights belong to every citizen not just a select segment.

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Olson and Boies are once again challenging this. It remains to be seen if the Roberts court will aggree or disagree with the Burger court. It's a shame that it will take about 2 years to find out.

[Liberal Angel]

Just as in the Dread Scott decision, where citizens of the country were denied citizenship, our courts can get the law wrong. While I agree that since marriage is a 10th Amendment issue, DOMA is a clear federal infringement on States authority, I disagree that because those courts found it ok to not apply the right to gay couples, that's the only reason it should be overturned. It violates Due Process and Equal Protection. It also goes against Article lV, Full Faith and Credit, and I also argue that it violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendement. It clearly says that anyone born here is a citizen, yet the Warren court denied that right to people who were and had been born here for generations. A particular court's prejudice doesn't mean wrong is right.

[Salencita]

I could not agree more. The repeal of DOMA, and with it state-sanctioned discrimination, could not happen soon enough. I strongly believe that those who were opposed to gay marriage now will be embarrassed to admit it in 10 or 20 years down the road, just like opposition to interracial marriage is taboo today but was a polarizing issue just a few decades ago.

The time to guarantee marriage equality and end this injustice is now.

[OutInLeftField]

I agree completely. The LGBT community is great-- however there are some that will dismiss them as just an interest group. Now is the time for allies to stand up against this important civil rights issue.

[OutInLeftField]

Just read my comment again--- I meant to say stand up FOR this important civil rights issue.

[OutInLeftField]

I think you're right on. The LGBT community is great-- however it is easy for some to dismiss them as just an interest group. Now is the time for other allies concerned with this important civil rights issue to stand up next to them.

[PlaceboStudman]

Hmmm...puzzling

This story has been floating around for a few days now, and so far HuffPo is the only place I can find it being covered. not CNN, not MSNBC, not even Rachel Maddow has mentioned it that I've seen. I would think that, with something this vitally important to the fabric of society (or so the Right Wing nut jobs tell us), that Pat Robertson and RIck Warren would be raging on all the networks against this,

Could this all just be a false alarm over nothing?

[OutInLeftField]

Well just remember that the main stream media also chose to cover Michael Jackson's funeral over the chaos that was occurring in Iran...

[John Bisceglia]

False hopes diffuses anger. It's a stall tactic, but I'm pessimistic when it comes to GOV acting responsibly.

[xenas mom]

As to the TV media, the story is probably just being overshadowed by the health-care debates and the resultant circus. As to the right-wing­-nuts...we­ll, first it's helpful to remember that these are not necessarily the brightest bulbs on the bush and multi-tasking is really hard for them. They've got health-care reform to worry about, plus finding new ways to hate the president, then there's always that pesky business of taking back the country or overthrowing the government or whatever they're calling it today. So much to hate, so little time. But not to worry, I'm sure they'll get back to us eventually.