Time to Repeal DOMA
The time has come to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Enacted 13 years ago when the idea of same sex marriage was struggling for acceptance, the Act is a relic of a more tradition-bound time and culture.
Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts have already passed laws recognizing same sex marriage and other states are moving in that direction. The states are the proper forum to address this divisive social and moral issue, not the Federal Government with a law that attempts to set one national standard for marriage.
Prohibition showed just how difficult it is to enforce law establishing standards of personal behavior or morality. Coercion, whether civic or legal, in matters of this kind rarely works. It certainly won't halt public controversy surrounding the issue.
The repeal of DOMA is one step among several designed to fully integrate and protect the rights of gays and lesbians in American society. Recently enacted hate crimes legislation is another. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S 909), which I sponsored with the late Senator Kennedy, makes it a federal crime to target victims on the basis of disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. President Obama has said he will sign the measure.
Nothing in the Act impedes the lawful expression of one's political or religious beliefs. All Americans are entitled to hold and express their own beliefs, no matter how provocative. At the same time, no person has the right to engage in violent acts of hate or incite to violence. Protecting Americans against such hate crimes does not inhibit free speech but rather serves us all by halting and penalizing those who carry out those acts of cruelty.
Measures to combat discrimination against gays and transgendered people in the workplace are another needed measure. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, of which I am an original cosponsor, was introduced on August 5, 2009 and is currently before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Finally, the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is outdated, and should be rescinded entirely. A person's sexual orientation has no bearing on their ability to serve their country in the armed services. Countless studies and the experiences of gays who have served in the military have borne out these findings.
Paul Hogarth: Why I'm Going to Maine
As a Californian, the fight against Question 1 in Maine, is personal. Gays and lesbians last year had their rights snatched away, and it can never happen again.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
DOMA was never a reflection of anything but political games and bigotry. It was wrong when passed (how did you vote?) and it's wrong today.
That is exactly what I was going to say, purser. And if Sen. Specter thinks it's about "personal behavior" or "morality," then he still didn't get the memo. It is politics, politics, and politics, period. If he has changed his mind due to his pollster or focus group, I'm still glad he changed his mind, but what he wrote shows he still doesn't know why DOMA and DADT were wrong then and wrong now.
"The states are the proper forum to address this divisive social and moral issue, not the Federal Government with a law that attempts to set one national standard for marriage."
And that's where you lost me. It took the courts and the federal government to cram desegregation down the states' throats, if you recall.
Too Little too Late. Where was he on this issue BEFORE the Election got So close???????
Can one Really Pretend to BE a Democrat...Seriously? We have Spector and Lieberman...Do You Reallllly TRUST them?
Thank you, Senator.
1. Nature is very clear, homosexuality is a part of human nature.
2. Our current obsession with PRETENDING it is not can only cause more harm than good. Nobody can be really happy living with ongoing deceit.
3. ACCEPTING this can only cause more good than harm.
Past time for Americans to be drinking our own Koolaid. This is just one of many issues that needs to be addressed honestly and openly. Thats the cultural revolution that carried Obama into office, and every American needs to be part of it.
Senator Spector: What is the name or number of your bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA)? I would like to lobby my senators to vote for it.
I'm with you. I will lobby with my Congressional group.
DATA INPUT For those who think that preference is a choice: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals There are tons of studies PROVING that: - Homosexuality is common - It happens in animals generally considered to be operating on instinct, not conscious decision making. So there is no scientific basis for your assertion. This was an illumination when I first learned about it some 30 years ago and it completely changed my thoughts on the matter. Please think about your positions in light of this info. If you still persist in arguing after being presented with real info, then you have other issues that reality will be talking to you about.
Sure, but even though it is not a choice, it doesn't mean that we have to allow people who are attracted to someone of their own sex to marry and procreate with that person. People who are attracted to their sibling or their child or parent do not have a choice about that, either, but it doesn't mean we allow them to marry and procreate that person.
Incest is NOT a sexual orientation. It is NOT immutable. Homosexuality IS, and is exactly as immutable as heterosexuality. Stop comparing the two, they have NOTHING in common.
Marry...why not? Surely the fundamental premise of the US Constitution is that people have rights to live freely, and those rights can only be abridged by a clear necessity. So what will happen if gays get to marry? In other countries where this has happened, there is zero side effect to the culture except to have more happy people living honestly.
Not sure how two people of the same sex will procreate? There has to be a second sex involved. Adoption seems much more likely. Either way, go back to point one. Whats the harm? IMO There are definitely gender based role models that the children would need to have access to, but thats true for any child. Rare is the family that fits the definition of 'perfectly normal'.
One major problem you have with your argument, Mr. Howard, is that procreation is NOT an requirement for a marriage license. You may have children and they will be included in the contract, BUT they are in NO way required, demanded, or obligated in law. You may have children either before, during, or never at all in a civil marriage.
Now since children are not required, then the genders of the 2 consenting human adults, are not a reason to block them from a civil marriage contract.
DOMA clearly violates Article lV of the Constitution. It's time for it to go. It should never have become law. I don't understand why people support unconstitutional measures when it it in line with their bigotry, but they never understand the same thing could happen to them. I hate the Klan, but I wouldn't support a law outlawing their right to exist. I don't trust other people with guns, but I wouldn't support a law to get rid of guns. I don't like a lot things, but I would never support an unconstitutional law to deny other people their rights. I'm tired of the arguments against my equality. How does anyone actually get the nerve to tell anyother human being that they should not be considered a human being? That's just what DOMA supporters and other homophobes are telling us. It's not right, and it's immoral.
DOMA allowed the state-by-state acclimation strategy, without DOMA there would have been a push for a FMA as soon as Massachusetts marriages were recognize by the federal gov. People that were opposed to same-sex marriage wanted an FMA, not DOMA.
DOMA is a violation of Article lV of the US Constitution. Plain and simple. Anyone who supports DOMA is a bigot.
I have two arguments against your point. The first is moral, rather than pragmatic. Simply put, instituting a lesser evil to prevent a larger evil does not lay a sturdy foundation for eliminating the evil entirely.
My second argument is pragmatic. If DOMA had never been passed, resulting in the passage of an FMA, that FMA would have lasted for a relatively short time. DOMA cowers behind a veil of states' rights, making it a muddier issue for those who see the rights of the states as superseding the rights of citizens. FMA was so blatantly unconstitutional, so blatantly non-conservative/big government, and so blatantly expanding the power of the Federal government, that it would never have been able to stand the test of time. DOMA, on the other hand, only has a chance at being repealed because of the unique majority that the Democrats have right now.
What is FMA?
I'm guessing it is not Financial Managment & Accountability, FullMetal Alchemist, Forest Management Agreement, Fictional Metrics Association, or Failure Mode Analysis.
Everything is an acronym these days, and many things don't seem to be clear about them.
The votes to pass the FMA - an amendment to our Constitution- have never been there. This is why Bush never really pursued the matter further. It takes supermajorities in both the House and Senate to amend the Constitution, and it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
Bill Clinton was always one to accept the second-worst option because it wasn't the worst.
Very well put. DOMA not only specifically violates the "full faith and credit provision" embodied in Section 1 of Article IV of the U. S. Constitution, as you have said, it also violates the equal protection under the laws afforded by the 14th Amendment. DOMA treats one segment of the citizenry differently from another segment, and denies the former equal application of laws benefitting the latter.
It also violates due process!
I have always failed to believe that preventing two loving people from committing to each other for the long term ever defended anything. How the American people fell for this is beyond me. Where were the laws against philandering? That would have been a true defense of marriage.
What prevents them from committing to each other? What needs to be prevented is them attempting to conceive children together, using their own genes. That's wasteful and unethical and is not a right. Civil Unions can give all the other rights of marriage without giving the equal right to procreate that all marriages should give.
Do you live in the United States? People have the right to reproduce whenever they wish here. They don't have to be married. Secondly, how is the choice to reproduce not a right? Thirdly, I dare you to come up with one good argument defending your position that reproduction by same-sex couples is unethical. Just one argument that I can't strike down with the standard techniques of argumentative writing. Good luck!
That's so ridiculously out of left field that it escapes its own hilarity.
"What needs to be prevented is them attempting to conceive children together, using their own genes. That's wasteful and unethical and is not a right."
Where are you getting THAT from? We're talking about non-related homosexuals getting married, not incest (which is something you all have been confusing for some time now). As far as biology is concerned, there is no such thing as male-male or female-female reproductivity. I guess you never graduated from a biology class in your life.
A relic like Senator Specter has the courage to speak up while Barack Obama continues to hide from DOMA and respect for the LGBT community?
Keep the change.
Specter is trying desperately to appeal to liberals.
thank you senator. It was absurd to think that anyone needed their marriage somehow protected from me anyway. what a backwards and insane way to think.
THANK YOU THANK YOU to Senator Specter for publicly showing his support for these vitally needed legislative changes. One piece of important legislation is, however, missing from his statement, and that is the UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT (S. 424, H.R. 1024). The Uniting American Families Act would amend immigration law so that American citizens with same-sex foreign national partners could sponsor those partners for residency in the U.S. The passage of this bill into law is urgently needed for tens of thousands of bi-national families around the world who are currently either separated (because the non-citizen partner cannot gain entry to the United States) or living abroad together, in order to be together. There was a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill in June, and at that hearing Senator Specter voiced his support for the bill. It is high time for the Senator to put his support into writing by signing onto the bill as a co-sponsor and by including it in pieces such as the one published here in the Huffington post.
Gays discriminate against single men and women who are not gay.
We are left holding the bag
I would challenge you to explain your thinking on this one. As a reader with no more information than your two sentences, it is very unclear to me how "gays" (and by this do you mean men? women? partnered? single? what about bisexual people?) discirminate against single heterosexual people. Can you clarify?
Whoa, there, fella. Just because you may have some friends who are bigots -- don't we all? -- doesn't mean most gay people discriminate against straight people. For most gay people, the pain, frustration, and despair of being ostracized because of who you are is not something we would inflict on other people. Let's all stop judging people by their age, gender, orientation, race, wealth, height, weight, religion, or other irrelevant factors. All you need to be my friend is to be friendly. BTW, hooray for Arlen Specter's revelation!
just when you think someone cant say something any stupider..........
You're always off-base with your comments. How are gays discriminating against ANYONE? NO WAY AT ALL. It's us who are being discriminated against by people like you. You blame the victims for their victimization, and then claim they did it to you. Pathetic.
As much attention as your first sentence has received, I feel compelled to address the second. You claim to be "left holding the bag." What does that even mean in this context? What bag? Why are you holding it? Why don't you just set it down? Who handed the bag to you in the first place? What, if anything, is in the bag? I'll admit I'm a bit tired, but I don't think 12 hours of sleep is going to elucidate the meaning of that sentence.
The challenge for his seat from Joe Sestak pushes Specter further left every day. Kudos to Sestak for having the courage to challenge him against the party establishment and kudos to Specter on his continuing evolution.
Senator thank you for bringing us into the 21st century..It is a struggle to combat for example, the judge in georgia who would not marry a black and white couple because he said it was for the kids, when we have a biracial president who did pretty good for himself as a biracial child. This judge is living in the 50s and 60s as much of our congress is..Its time to stop discriminating .All of it...Our constitution gave all americans equal rights, not just a select few..
That was actually in Hammond, Louisiana, and it was a Justice of the Peace. His actions were deplorable, and Sen. David Vitter refusing to comment on it just shows how horrible people can be. New Orleans is the center of the Liberal South, but two feet outside the city limits can be dangerous if you're not white, middle class, heterosexual, and christian.
You've come a long way, Senator. It's a pleasant sight. I look forward to your continued evolution on other issues.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
