The past year truly has been a landmark year in the fight for equality for LGBT Americans. Not only did Congress finally repeal the corrosive and immoral "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, but we won some important battles in the fight to allow every loving couple the opportunity to marry.
First, New Hampshire and Washington, DC began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples; then a federal court found provisions of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) unconstitutional; and now, just last week, President Obama and the Justice Department announced that they would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA in court.
Prior to this announcement, I was working with colleagues and advocates to encourage this move and I applaud the President's decision, but the fact is that DOMA will continue to be enforced until Congress repeals it legislatively. Achieving marriage equality is a top priority of mine and I believe that repeal of DOMA is a crucial step toward that goal.
I hope you'll join me in this fight at repealDOMA.com.
We must repeal this discriminatory law. There is no reason same-sex couples should be denied the same rights that my husband and I and so many other straight Americans enjoy. For me it comes down to the very simple principles that every American should be able to marry the person they love, and that discrimination against LGBT Americans is unconstitutional and wrong.
The law as it currently stands denies federal benefits to thousands of legally married couples -- more than 1,100 federal rights and privileges enjoyed by straight couples, including hospital visitation, inheritance and some health care benefits. It discourages states from recognizing these legal marriages and it denies millions more Americans the right to marry the person they love.
This is wrong.
Senator Feinstein has announced she will introduce repeal legislation in the US Senate and Rep. Nadler will do the same in the House. I look forward to supporting their efforts and helping lead the way in this battle. Despite the fact that Republicans control the House, it's crucial that we begin the debate now.
So please join me at repealDOMA.com. And if you've been affected by DOMA, please share your story with us. As with DADT, personalizing this fight will be the key to winning it.
Thanks for your ongoing support in our battle for LGBT equality.
Follow Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenGillibrand
Barbara Crafton: How Religion Can Help (and Hurt) Our Understanding of Marriage and Family
http://riles52.blogspot.com/2011/03/congress-provides-subsidy-to-gay.html
My take on the issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-donius/doma-for-dummies_b_830228.html
http://riles52.blogspot.com/2011/02/amended-returns-due-to-doma-case-what.html
I support the rights of LGBT people to express themselves and live peacefully to themselves, as long as they do not feel free to IMPOSE THEIR VALUES upon me and my children. Once you cross that line, I fight for my right to express my feelings as freely as any of you do, because as many of you have pointed out again and again, EVERYONE'S feelings (including mine) have validity. But the understanding here is only window dressing. The bigotry here is worse than the most die hard Gay Basher out there. They, for the most part, admit their, bigotry. Yours is as bad, and you refuse to admit anything! So I teach my children how to spot a hypocrite at a young age. It is refreshing to see how easy it is for them to see how ugly you can all be, whitewashing your faults and pointing fingers at EVERYONE else. If there is one truth to be learned, it is that the ones screaming the loudest are often the most guilty! And children catch on quick!
Also, isn't supporting a ban on gay marriage imposing your values on other people? Who's the hypocrite now?
Legalizing gay marriage imposes values very simply by the validation of the concept that gay marriage is *exactly* equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Most of the Gay Community DEMANDS such validation! Such validation is INDEED something that pushes values. Sorry, but even if Gay Marriages are "called" equal under the Law, I will FOREVER call them exactly what they are: GAY Marriages. I will not simply call them Marriages. THAT is something the First Amendment SHOULD Preserve for me: My ability to speak plainly and clearly of the Truth as I see it.
You're correct in the second point in the first sentence. I am imposing my values. My values are that Gay Marriage is NOT EXACTLY the same as Heterosexual Marriage. If you want to say they are similar, I don't argue that point. You say the differences are esoteric. I say they are fundemantal. IF there TRUELY are no differences, then your second point would be valid. However, in order to call me a hypocrite, you must establish that there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference at all. Biological facts don't support you there.
Call it a Civil Union, as opposed to a Marriage, and you have less resistance from me. At that point, it becomes my values versus your values, and I can not speak against it as forcefully. This is not just semantics, otherwise why should YOU care?
http://riles52.blogspot.com/2011/02/amended-returns-due-to-doma-case-what.html
They're varied. It's not like DOMA is good if you oppose SSM, as it does allow gay marriage after all. I'd say it was essential in order for states to implement SSM. Without it there'd be an FMA by now for sure.
-James Madison, Federalist No. 45 (January 26, 1788)
So while a state can define marriage as a proper exercise of state power it cannot do so in a manner that is discriminatory as we see in Prop 8.
Here's just one instance of it:
"Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), was a United States Supreme Court case appealed from the Supreme Court of Missouri concerning the Missouri law which ordained "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."
Virginia Minor, a leader of the women's suffrage movement in Missouri, alleged that the refusal of Reese Happersett, a Missouri state registrar, to allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the Missouri voting legislation saying that the limitation of suffrage to male citizens was not an infringement of Minor's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The United States Supreme Court affirmed and upheld the lower court's ruling on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment does not add to the privileges or immunities of a citizen, and that historically "citizen" and "eligible voter" have not been synonymous."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett
Furthermore, our founders could only imagine an African Americans or women in houses of government as servants...welcome to the 21st century.
But, you know those vows, "I take thee to have and to hold all the approved parts, that function to make babies until that function doth depart and theirwith get a new thee to hold", are hard to break and do away with as our dear forefathers have laid down in der constitution.
I suggest passing a law that taxes non-baby marriages higher by forcing individual returns until a properly approved by their own special organs produced baby lands in that marriage, which of course would then make it a marriage. Before that it would be impossible to be called married.
Freedom from is just as important as an express right. There is no right of privacy expressly stated in the constitution but privacy is protected in the realm of private relations and reproductive health. Its called "substantive due process".
I think gays and our supporters would be naive to ignore the fact that this issue was completely ignored by you and your fellow democrats when you controlled both houses of congress and could have actaully had success in repealing DOMA (and passing ENDA, since we are on the topic of LGBT equality) instead of simply having a talking point.
This is one gay voter who is growing tired of having our issues being only a talking point for Democrats instead of an action item.
It really is unfortunate that they let two years go by without taking full advantage of their legislative majorities...but they did, which really makes me think they don't truly want legislation...they want talking points.
The administration has decided not to spend any more time or money IN COURT on this issue. Thats all.