It is great news that gay couples in New York now have the right to legally marry.
It is wrong, however, that those same married couples will not be able to enjoy the federal rights and privileges afforded to straight married couples.
The reason is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a bill passed in 1996 that denies the rights and benefits provided by the federal government to legally married same-sex couples.
Just a few months ago, I introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill to repeal DOMA once and for all.
The bill is simple. It would strike DOMA from federal law and free the federal government to provide basic stability, security and fairness to thousands of same-sex couples in this country.
And I am very pleased that President Obama has endorsed our legislation to repeal DOMA and right this wrong.
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee held the very first congressional hearing on the repeal of DOMA. I hope it will open the minds of many of my colleagues about repealing DOMA.
This is the key argument I made at today's hearing:
Family law has traditionally been the preserve of state law and therefore it varies from state to state.
Marriage is the preserve of state law. Divorce is the preserve of state law. Adoption is the preserve of state law. Inheritance rights are the preserve of state law.
The single exception is DOMA.
The Williams Institute at UCLA estimates there are between 50,000 and 80,000 married same-sex couples in the states that have approved same-sex marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia.
The number of couples will significantly grow now that New York State recently granted same-sex couples the freedom to marry.
In my state of California, an estimated 18,000 couples were wed when same-sex marriage was allowed in 2008.
These couples live their lives like all married people.
They share financial expenses, they raise children together and they care for each other in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, until death they do part.
But because of DOMA, these couples cannot take advantage of the more than 1,100 federal protections available to every other married couple in this country.
DOMA denies these couples the rights and benefits to file joint federal income taxes and claim certain deductions; receive spousal benefits under Social Security; take unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act; or obtain the protections of the estate tax when a spouse passes and wants to leave his or her possessions to another.
In fact, many people are impacted precisely when they are at their most vulnerable: after the death of their spouse or when their spouse is seriously ill. This discrimination is wrong, plain and simple, and it impacts so many couples around the country.
When I introduced the Respect for Marriage Act earlier this year, three couples came forward with stories or commitment to each other and to their children. Today the committee heard from more married couples about how DOMA has impacted their lives.
The most effective weapon we have at our disposal is storytelling. These stories of married couples who are denied the stability and the protections guaranteed by federal law will help build momentum to repeal DOMA and right this wrong.
The Courage Campaign, a 700,000-member grassroots organization based in California, is working state-by-state to gain support and gather stories.
This has been an historic year in equality for LGBT Americans. Congress finally repealed the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and a federal court recently found provisions of DOMA unconstitutional.
But we still have more to do.
Repealing DOMA won't be easy. It will be a long road. But it is the right thing to do and I look forward to leading this fight in the United States Senate.
I hope you will share your story--whether you are gay or straight--and join me in this fight.
Senator Dianne Feinstein is California's senior senator and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Tobias Barrington Wolff: DOMA Repeal and the Truth About Full Faith & Credit
It would be good to leave "civil rights" as a term to use for lobbying for the oppressed...who live in most towns.
By that, I mean those living in neighborhoods which are usually dangerous...parents who are likely to see at least one child die a violent death.
And what of Humantrafficking? The semi slavery from which come an undetermined (but surely signficant) number of our foster kids...And of course, the women, girls, (sometimes boys) who are treated as slaves...
These are causes where we (the strong) stand for those whoare truly weak. Many are short of money...Some fear for their lives.
But the main civil rights aim of our culture does NOT include them>
How sad to become a nation where the strong might become stronger...and gain more "rights"!!!
We crunch the bones of our children as we (mostly) push aside their plot to experiment with radical social engineering for persons who (from stats, things I read, hear) appear to have average to good jobs, and cash.
Thank you for working to end the process of allowing some Americans to place themselves in a class that is legally superior to other citizens.
" But you cannot base the LAWS around your belief in an invisible sky monster!"
Actually, I want to get the government OUT OF THE BUSINESS of conducting religious sacraments. "Married" has no business as a civil status recognized by any government. You, on the other hand, insist on maintaining a 5,000 year old religious sacrament in our civil government, in violation of the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state.
The government is welcome to recognize whatever group or coupling of individuals they want, but that is not marriage, in the same way that apples are not oranges. Call it whatever you want, I don't care, but I know that the state (sovereign) has no business being involved in a religious sacrament, no matter how much the citizens want to wrap themselves in a given shroud. Marriage was a religious sacrament millenia before there were nation-states, and only the eternal struggle of the state (sovereign) to subdue and wrestle power from capitalists, religion, and the family has sustained this obviously illegitimate effort.
Government should come up with something new, of their own, that does not rely in a religious sacrament - - - what, do our citizens now all of a sudden want to be HOLY?!?!?
At least we can now visit New York.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001556184660&sk=photos#!/note.php?note_id=162547447145866
History will remember you well.
If statistics are any indication, only temporarily and only slightly. The actual socioeconomic reason for government sanctioning "marriage" is that institution is how humanity a) reproduces and b) raises productive, law abiding members of society to form the next generation. In essence, two altruistic and selfless functions, far removed from who likes to cuddle with who.
If it came down to genetic testing (which I am by no means advocating), depending on how you break out 'male' and female', there will be people that would not be legally married and didn't even know it if we were all checked for genetics. Kleinfelter's Disorder (XXY) individuals, folks with mosaic genetics, etc. How do they fit in? What about people who were born DSD (Disorder of Sex Development, previously known as Intersex) and were assigned female at birth because of ambiguous genitalia that were later surgically confirmed female, but have XY chromosomes?
Even if DOMA is unconstitutionally vague, it's an outdated concept.
The facts of 'male' and 'female' exist on several different levels -- ferinstance biological, genetic, social and legal.
But by me typing 'belief system' doesn't meant that it isn't real for the believer -- it can be very real for them. Just look at how many people who were born in America think of themselves as "Americans" and are willing to protect that idea, when it doesn't really "exist".
We have more choice than we may think.
This also applies to you Senator Feinstein, California's senior senator and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Each state regulates its own marriage laws.
To be legally married one must have a state issued
certificate of marriage. To end a marriage one must
have a state issued dissolution of marriage. These
legal documents are based on state laws which
supersede any and all religious beliefs concerning
marriage.
Again.....civil marriage is a civil right.