More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

GET UPDATES FROM Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
 

Momentum for DOMA Repeal Continues to Build

Posted: 07/20/11 10:59 AM ET

This year, we have seen historic progress for LGBT rights, in particular on marriage equality, at both the state and federal levels.

Most recently, of course, I was thrilled when my home state of New York passed marriage equality. The law goes into effect on Sunday and I can't wait to see the images of so many loving couples lining up for marriage licenses. I also look forward to attending some of my good friends' weddings this year!

In addition to New York's historic victory, we're making significant progress at the federal level as well. Back in March, you'll recall the Obama Administration took the unprecedented step of announcing it would cease to defend the constitutionality of The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA.) This discriminatory law prohibits the federal recognition of legal same-sex marriages all over the country and prevents loving same-sex couples from enjoying over 1,100 rights and privileges afforded to married straight couples by the federal government.

Then, this past April, I was proud to join Senator Feinstein, Senator Leahy and several other of my colleagues in introducing the Respect For Marriage Act. This bill will repeal DOMA and require the US government to treat all legally married couples equally under the law.

I also launched an online campaign with Democracy For America to increase awareness of the issue and build support for repeal nationwide.

In addition, just this week Quinnipiac University released a poll showing that 59% of Americans would support the repeal of a law that denies "spouses in same-sex marriages ... eligibility for federal benefits," which is precisely what DOMA does.

Then yesterday, I was thrilled to see the President endorse The Respect For Marriage Act, just a day before the bill has its first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning.

The momentum in this fight is clearly on our side.

Even as we in Congress work to repeal DOMA legislatively, there are lawsuits challenging its constitutionality progressing through the courts around the country, one of which has been brought in federal court here in New York by an inspiring woman named Edie Windsor from New York City. Edie and her partner Thea first met in 1965, got engaged in 1967 and remained engaged for 40 years before traveling to Canada to get married in 2007. You see, it was in 2007 that Thea -- who had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis years earlier -- received a dire diagnosis and they felt they had little time if they wanted to marry. And indeed, Thea passed away in January 2009.

Upon Thea's death, Edie discovered that while New York recognized their marriage, the United States of America treated Edie and Thea as complete strangers. Most notably, Edie had to pay exorbitant estate taxes on the inheritance she received from Thea -- something straight married couples are exempted from.

See Edie tell her remarkable love story in her own words below:


It's stories like Edie's that inspire me every day to fight this unjust law and to work toward full LGBT equality in this country. And it's why DFA and I have begun to collect the stories of Americans who've been affected by DOMA. Please spread the word to anyone you know whose life has been harmed by DOMA so they can tell us their story. For only through putting faces and names on this shameful policy will we be able to change hearts and minds and repeal it once and for all.

While this weekend we will -- and should -- celebrate the fact that in New York same-sex couples will finally be able to marry, the fact remains that the federal government will continue to treat these loving couples as though they're strangers. This is a wrong we must right.

We did it with Don't Ask Don't Tell, and I know we can do it with DOMA. It won't happen overnight, but now is the time to start raising awareness and fighting for the repeal of this shameful law.

 

Follow Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenGillibrand

 
 
  • Comments
  • 152
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
07:25 PM on 07/21/2011
One gets very interesting replies from those 'straight' people who believe that allowing gays to marry threatens their marriage vows. The simple question, "How?" throws them for a loop.
photo
jnncan8
Obama 2012
10:43 AM on 07/21/2011
I really hope DOMA is finally repealed. That law is a black mark on our history as a free country. Equality is a basic human right and it's sad that we even have to debate it.
09:32 AM on 07/21/2011
Now that liberals have declared that the traditional purpose of marriage (i.e., encouraging human reproduction in supportive, stable biological family units) is "obsolete," and "discriminatory," the state no longer has any legitimate publlic interest in supporting marriage at all. Why should "married" people of whatever persuasion get special rights and benefits that single people can't get? Legal marriage per se is clearly discriminatory and irrational, and LGBT activists are hypocrites, because they support discriminating against single people for no good reason besides their own irrational prejudices. Having one regular sex partner is not a valid basis to deny rights and financial benefits to others who shoose not to live that way.
11:54 AM on 07/21/2011
You are mixing issues. One is discrimination against single people, and the other is discrimination against people who are legally married but whose marriages the federal government does not recognize for purposes of tax breaks and other benefits.

It's illogical to blame liberals or LBGT activists for either form of discrimination.
12:37 PM on 07/21/2011
I disagree. If "same-sex" marriage supporters were intellectually honest and principled, they would demand the abolishment of marriage laws altogether, because there is no way to define marriage that doesn't discriminate against some people who fall outside the definition.

It is not illogical to call "same-sex" marriage activists hypocrites. They are the ones who set out to undermine and destroy traditional marriage in order to obtain benefits and status for themselves in the name of "fairness" -- and meanwhile, they are perfectly willing to continue depriving others of the same benefits, rights and status based on irrational prejudices. That is certainly hypocritical.
02:33 AM on 07/21/2011
Liberty, Justice and Freedom for all Americans. DOMA must end! I support the President and Democrats 100% concerning this most basic human rights issue. And I for one as a conservative, humbly apologize for the unequal bias.....I pledge to petition my Republican/Tea Party Congressman accordingly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rastignac
liberal geek motorcyclist
08:17 AM on 07/21/2011
F&F # 31. Thanks for your support of marriage equality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lendmeanear
01:47 AM on 07/21/2011
Darn tootin!
01:19 AM on 07/21/2011
In response to the people who doubt the "momentum" described by the fantastic Senator Gillibrand, I can attest that here in Massachusetts for the years leading up to the historic ruling that brought the first Marriage Equality to the United States, we felt momentum albeit shaky when our enemies pressed hard against us. At times, the hate mongerers and radical religious zealots appeared to be squashing our amazing progress. It was only through intense lobbying, committed couples telling their stories to the public and representatives in the State House, and gay and straight allies pulling together, were we able to carry the day. Even in the year 2000, we did not believe that Marriage Equality would ever take place within our lifetimes, yet in under a decade, we now have six states and one District that provide full Marriage Equality, however, only at state level, with its attendant limitations. This was unthinkable just one decade ago! If that is not "momentum", I don't know what is. "Per arduat, ad alta - Through adversity, the summit"
10:53 AM on 07/21/2011
We look forward to the day when Senator Gillibrand and her enlightened followers in Massachusetts see the true light of reason, cast aside all of their hypocritcal, irrational prejudices, and eliminate all laws that unfairly control consensual sexual behavior -- e.g., laws against polygamy, incest, etc., Either all consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever and however many people they wish, or else these medieval, discriminatory legal distinctions between "married" and "unmarried" should be completely eliminated. The state has no business conferring special rights and economic benefits on some sexual partners while depriving others of the same rights.
12:46 AM on 07/21/2011
Let's put DOMA in a COMA! After negotiating a difficult "divorce" without the protection and guidance of laws and still remaining friends, my former first 'husband' (pre-Marriage Equality in Mass.) passed away, without executing a new Will naming his new 'husband' in California. This was a sudden death, completely unexpected. Both his second husband and I could not access his medical records to probe any medical tests or exams that might have indicated his ill state. The only Will that was in effect was one that he and I had created back in the early 1980's. Trying to make funeral arrangements, or disposal of his assets was not only a nightmare, but an additional emotional burden on his newly-Widowed spouse. It was heartbreaking. If one person in a heterosexual marriage dies intestate, i.e., without a Will in effect, the surviving spouse will inherit the estate without onerous estate taxes or hassles. Talk about crucifying a person when they are most vulnerable, the supporters of DOMA have no heart or soul.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:51 PM on 07/20/2011
Let's focus on something important, JOBS.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rastignac
liberal geek motorcyclist
08:18 AM on 07/21/2011
This may not be important to you, but it is extremely important for same-sex couples who wish to be married.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:09 AM on 07/21/2011
Drive to Iowa, been allow people to get married for years....

also the first female superintendent of public schools happened in Davenport, Iowa over 100 years ago... Pheobe Sudlow...

First to vote, first to use DNA evidence to convict, first to allow gambling, close to being first in allowing anyone to marry anyone, first to produce slice bread too....
photo
WheelsOnFire
Fiercely Independent
11:18 PM on 07/21/2011
Maybe you're capable of doing only one thing at a time.

Fortunately, Congress is capable of doing many things at a time.

And justice delayed is justice denied.
11:42 PM on 07/20/2011
Wrong. Civil unions are fine, but the majority of Americans respect and revere the traditional marriage as ordained by God, between one man and one woman. The best interests of society and the state dictate that same sex unions cannot be called marriages.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
12:14 AM on 07/21/2011
Abraham was a polygamist. Jesus never married and his father was not married to his mother.

What would happen if we decide that religious bigots should not marry?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bebby37
An old mad liberal white lady with pitchfork
07:43 AM on 07/21/2011
Good idea-that's a good way to eliminate bigots.
01:50 AM on 07/21/2011
You had better check the latest polls and studies, and ones before that. Seems you're out of touch with what the "majority" of Americans think.
photo
intellectualTradition
corruptisima re publica plurimae leges
08:40 PM on 07/21/2011
so for decades when the polls didn't favor your position, how did you use them ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Titanshanks
Back for more
11:38 PM on 07/20/2011
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-bill-would-defend-marriage-from-sharks,2047/

One of my favorites on the subject.
07:04 PM on 07/20/2011
Let’s either fully legislate morality and do it proudly or drop it. If we are going to pass laws dictating the precise moral parameters of marriage, can we at least be consistent? There must be hundreds of areas of human behavior which also do not fit the historic moral underpinnings of our great county. Just ask the conservatives, they’re expert in this area(especially when it comes to sexual behavior).

We’d have to actively enforce these new laws and regulations of course. But think of the potential jobs created!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Zwartz
12:14 AM on 07/21/2011
The historic undertaking from the bible is Polygamy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joedas
My former employer would forbid it,
06:59 PM on 07/20/2011
This business of Gay marriages is strictly a religious issue, and should not be decided by political means or even Courts. It could be decided by religious groups.

60 percent of"Straight" marriages end in Divorce, that is also a religious issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
09:04 PM on 07/20/2011
Turn that around 180 degrees and you'd be correct.

The fact of the matter is that marriage and divorce in America is a LEGAL matter, with religious leaders being granted the same authority as judges and ship captains to legally join two people together.
CognitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum was taken when I signed up.
09:16 PM on 07/20/2011
Except that marriage is a civil contract that changes one's legal status, which makes it a political issue. To deny same-sex couples the default benefits of marraiges, such as being recognized as legal family in matters of child custody, adoption, inheritance, taxes and government benefits is unjust.
photo
SoylentGreenIsPeople
Hmmm........Tastes Like Chicken !
06:52 PM on 07/20/2011
Financiali­zation has disabled the Democratic party. In a turnaround from their origins, you don’t hear much about financial issues from the Democrats in America. They focus only on cultural issues, minorities­, sexual equality, but not banking and finance, or even privatizat­ion except when it threatens labor unions. The result is an absence of a political alternativ­e. Meanwhile, economic democracy is being turned into a financial oligarchy.
http://michael-hudson.com/2011/07/the-euthanasia-of-industry/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rastignac
liberal geek motorcyclist
08:28 AM on 07/21/2011
Your post is laughable. It is the Republicans who have always predictably pushed only cultural wedge issues. Instead of producing a single jobs bill, the Republican House has dwelled on same sex marriage, abortion and class warfare to benefit the rich only. Republicans are all for removing any regulations on business while at the same time imposing autocratic rules on how individuals must lead their private lives. You have it backwards.
photo
upthewazooforus
Which is it, ideology or country first?
04:57 PM on 07/20/2011
I'm so proud to be one of this lady's constituents. I certainly hope she has aspirations to become President someday. Always charming and approachable, and would kick the crap out (figuratively) of just about anyone who ran against her. Kristen in 2016.
03:26 PM on 07/20/2011
Marriage does not change how people feel about one another, prejudiced people merely assume their love is more valid and human, and dismiss gays as less than human. Marriage isn't being defended. Marriages are being destroyed.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Hardyman1966
The antonym of liberal is INTOLERANT.
05:56 PM on 07/20/2011
The silly part is, if we read history, it had nothing to do with love in its early and most allegedly sacred origins.

It was about the transferring of title and property to secure a family's standing.  "If you marry my daughter, I'll give you a bag of gold.  Or potatoes.  Or have Grace get you something on the way out."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
09:05 PM on 07/20/2011
Yeah, marriage before "love marriages" was actually STRONGER than now.... Or else they were less willing to assert themselves as separate from each other..