The House passes the Senate's healthcare reform bill 219-212.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Legislation proposed to repeal DOMA
Today Congressman Jerrold Nadler introduces a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans federal recognition of same-sex unions and bans Social Security survivor payments and other government benefits for same-sex couples. Obama has said he supports the repeal but then the Department of Justice filed a brief defending it, angering gay activists. Politico notes that, “If nothing else, DOMA repeal bill will put Obama on the spot.”
Pro-family groups quickly reacted. Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright said, “DOMA reflects the reality that marriage provides unique benefits to individuals, children, and society which cannot be replicated by any other living arrangement.” Ironically, gay Congressman Barney Frank said he will not fight for DOMA’s repeal: “It’s not anything that’s achievable in the near term.”
.
back to top35 Comments to “Legislation proposed to repeal DOMA”
Nadler is opposing or proposing? Mr Olasky, as EDITOR in chief we hold you personally reprehensible for this unintended malapropism.
Report comment to moderator
I thought for a moment Nadler was proposing DOMA 2.0.
The original DOMA was signed after midnight by Bill Clinton in the Oval Office. No bill-signing ceremony when Bill signed it. That a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act should be enacted into law by Bill Clinton has to be one of the biggest ironies!
Report comment to moderator
Is this what was have to look forward to. Every 4 to 12 years having everything the last party in power did undone?
Report comment to moderator
There are so many proposals for over-turning DOMA. I really wish Alisa had gone into more detail. For example, is the proposed repeal only of the clause preventing federal recognition or of the whole she-bang?!
Re Frank: He has always been a pessimist, and has preferred to drag his feet on gay rights causes under similar excuses. See for example, the ENDA debate about gender identity. Frank was one of the hardest Reps to convince to support a gender inclusive version. But he doesn’t matter. Frank doesn’t own the national civil rights agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Nadler is definitely a piece of work….another one of his legislations is: H.CON.RES.137
Title: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the lack of adequate housing must be addressed as a barrier to effective HIV prevention, treatment, and care, and that the United States should make a commitment to providing adequate funding for developing housing as a response to the AIDS pandemic.
So we should allow Social Security to partners of same sex unions (which one by the way? the last one? all of them? a few of them? selected ones? Barney Frank would like to know which one of his partners to grant Social Security payments to.) and at the same time we should through tax payer funding pay for housing as a response to the AIDS pandemic?
Strange guy.
Report comment to moderator
And I know you are going to find this hard to believe but yes Representative Nadler is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucas, which should say enough about his agenda.
Report comment to moderator
There’s a good argument that DOMA is unconstitutional, particularly on Tenth Amendment grounds. I wonder how NJLawyer feels about it.
Report comment to moderator
Itsaboutfreedom, has completely left the playing field of civil, intelligent discussion. It’s been my mantra lately: GROW UP!
Millions of heterosexuals have dozens of sexual partners without causing ambiguity about who gets their social security benefits if they die. GROW UP!
Report comment to moderator
That is because the law is written that a union is between a man and a woman. Do I need to spell that out for you Mynock or do you think you can figure that out on your own?
This is exactly what DOMA does, defines the union. Thus, federal benefits at this time, until or unless this bill is passed, are only eligible to be passed on to the man or woman who is in a union enforced by law.
So, I don’t know where exactly I need to grow up since the law plainly states all this but please let me know.
Report comment to moderator
Ted Olson, of all people, will be trying to make the case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/us/19olson.html
His lawsuit is actually against Prop 8.
We know what the conservative argument against gay marriage will be: politics. Conservatives will appeal to majoritarian sentiment, not to the logic of Equal Protection the precedent of Loving v. Virginia. The country is decades away from recognizing this rights; therefore, we’re compelled to wait for the old homophobes to die.
Report comment to moderator
Or maybe it is the fact that my “mantra” lately is truthful and the truth hurts. Look up the DOMA in the Congressional archive and you will see that very, very plainly it states union between MAN and WOMAN.
Or as we used to say in Russian “? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????????????!!!”
Report comment to moderator
I forgot that WorldMag doesn’t like Cyrillic so here you go in Latin letters: “i eto delayet etot argument okonchatelnii!!!!!!!!!!!”
Report comment to moderator
Itsaboutfreedom,
Yes, DOMA does define the union. But you seemed to be suggesting, in #5, that if DOMA were repealed it would be unclear which partner from a same sex union would get benefits. All Mynock is pointing out in #8 is that the existence of multiple sexual partners doesn’t create that problem with heterosexuals, so why should it with homosexuals? If there were such a thing as same-sex marriage (recognized at the federal level), the rules would work the same way as they do now for (heterosexual) marriages.
Whatever the arguments for and against DOMA, the that particular issue is not one of them, as far as I can see.
Report comment to moderator
Okay I get the point now, guess I mis-intrepreted what Mynock was trying to say. So to Mynock – I apologize for mis-understanding what your question was and re-phrase my answer.
Based on my understanding you are eligible to receive your spouse’s SS benefits based on a very complicated percentage scale that I won’t even bother to understand since the system will be out of money by the time my wife and I are old enough. But regardless of how you receive them and how they pay them out, I believe that as the Social Security law states right now that you and your partner (if it were a same sex union) would not be eligible unless you lived in a state that a same sex union were legal. So, even if they repeal DOMA (which may not be constitutional) a same sex union may not be able to draw on Social Security benefits if their particular state did not recognize same sex unions as legal.
So, if DOMA were repealed it would fall back to how the law was before 1996, would it not? And that would mean that individual states would determine the legality of a same sex union.
Report comment to moderator
OK…I found what I was looking for:
Social Security benefits are currently paid to the spouses of disabled, retired, or deceased workers entitled to Social Security. However, under current law, same-sex spouses are not eligible for Social Security benefits because they are unable to meet the genderbased definitions of “wife” and “husband” in the Social Security Act and the genderbased definition of “marriage” established by the Defense of Marriage Act. Federal employee pensions and private-sector pensions regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) are required to provide certain benefits to the spouse of a participant in the event of the participant’s death. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, both federal pensions and private-sector pensions regulated by ERISA are required to define a spouse only as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” This report will be updated as legislative activity warrants.
http://opencrs.com/document/RS21897/
So, with that explanation they can’t just repeal DOMA, they would have to repeal ERISA also, otherwise government same sex unions would not be recognized.
That just makes the whole issue clear as mud now, doesn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
I have but a few minutes because I have a 7 p.m. meeting and still have to dress and get there. I have never researched DOMA, but I think arguments can be made either way. I think I understand where SteveG is going with the “reserved to the states” because the marriage laws are state laws, not federal. The DOMA, however, was never meant to pre-empt that field of law and as I understand it, only applies to federal benefits. In NJ, we have given the same benefits to same sex couples who have declared themselves as domestic partners, and that’s been so for some time.
Even if you repeal DOMA, what’s being put in its place? Just because you repeal it, doesn’t mean you have same sex marriage. So, Barney may not be wrong when he says these things are not achievable in the near term. Considering the way “The People” have been acting up lately, I would think the Congress would be a tad reluctant to ram this sort of thing down peoples’ throats before the 2010 election, though these clowns in power seem to ignore the will of the people on a regular basis.
You can make an argument either way. I think my personal opinion is well-known on this subject.
Report comment to moderator
THANK GOD and praise the Lord. This is has been too long coming!
Report comment to moderator
You really think God is behind this offensive nonsense?
Report comment to moderator
I have been praying for it and it happened. You do the math. It is God’s will.
Report comment to moderator
What does math have to do with same sex marriage?
And will there be any Social Security left to fight over?
Report comment to moderator
News3me, well, it just adds up, the biblical Ruth was gay. I prayed in my closet for something to start moving with DOMA and it happened, FINALLY. We can have no clearer proof that god is just sick and tired of this discrimination. Go GOD. You sit upon your throne in heaven. You are a sovereign God.
Report comment to moderator
Let them repeal the act.
Christians have a law written in their hearts which no legislation can annul.
Those who truly have this law within them don’t need man-made laws to confer or protect the intrinsic benefits which come from walking in the truth.
OH
Report comment to moderator
I’m going to guess the Founders who signed the little piece of paper back 222 years ago Thursday never thought marriage would ever become a constitutional question.
So, with that in mind, how can we even begin to discuss what is “constitutional” if we are to remain true to “original intent” which more than likely never took a definition of marriage into consideration?
OH
Report comment to moderator
#23, So, with that in mind, how can we even begin to discuss what is “constitutional” if we are to remain true to “original intent” which more than likely never took a definition of marriage into consideration. You mean like calling a black man 3/5th of a person? Do you mean not letting women vote? Do you mean allowing people to be enslaved? Are those the kind of things that we are to remain true to as the “original intent” of the constitution? Really?
Report comment to moderator
Scott
I was trying to be subtle. But you prove my point.
“Constitutional” or “original intent” are subjective/relative terms, obviously.
Marriage isn’t. Not for the Christian. I say why allow the doctrine of Christian marriage and all of its benefits to submit themselves to an ever-changing and amendable document?
I argue it isn’t necessary, that’s all. Living out a marriage is more important that how any particular law defines it. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be laws in place that uphold, honor and protect the institution of course. Just that for a believing couple who lives according to the law written upon their hearts, no external law is necessary.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Christian marriage can never be changed by civil law. I can suffer with civil unions as long as they never call it marriage. It isn’t marriage and can never be. But gays will never be happy until they supplant and usurp the title for themselves. That is my only regret.
Report comment to moderator
That’s the funny part Xion, no one that I know is trying to change christian marriage. I’m glad to see that you can “suffer” through others’ misery of being 2nd class citizens. It’s very big of you. You’re right, gays will never be happy until we’re not treated as 2nd class citizens. Again, sorry you regret for that kind of non-discrimination and inclusion.
Report comment to moderator
The philosophy that the constitution exists as a living document WAS the framers’ intent. Read Federalist 84.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, Mynock.
My point was again, to suggest that marriage is an unchanging institution.
The Constitution is not.
Must what is transient define what is sacred?
Oh
Report comment to moderator
I guess the constitution is the only contract that can be reinterpreted and usually quite expansive and liberal by the interpreters.
How sad if folks were as flippant and loose with the terms of a rental lease or other binding contracts as they are with the constitution of our Republic!
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK wrote; “Millions of heterosexuals have dozens of sexual partners without causing ambiguity about who gets their social security benefits if they die.”
Actually, any and all forms of such sexual chaos can and often does cause both ambiguity AND radical changes with regard to who gets Social Security benefits–because such sexual chaos often leads to divorce and other forms of permenant break-down in relationships. But my clarification here does not necessarily speak to the specific argument over repealing DOMA or not–I am just clarifying that either way, sexual chaoes does indeed often cause chaos and ambiguity in who gets Soc. Sec. benefits in the long run.
Report comment to moderator
#10 represents a serious misunderstanding of conservative thinking. Scroop Moth wrote; “We know what the conservative argument against gay marriage will be: politics.”
Incorrect. It’s morality, not politics. Conservatives care more about marriage than politics. A conservative candidate who wanted to deconstruct marriage and honestly voiced that policy would not get far, no matter how conservative he or she was on other policies.
The fact is that DOMA was passed by Congress in 1996 by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. To implicitly or explicitly primarily blame conservatives for this law is disingenuous, and a politically partisan twisted spin too.
Report comment to moderator
DOMA defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. This also potentially negatively impacts the desired social security benefits for polygamiests and polyamorists too. If “marriage” was anything that anyone wanted it to be at any time, then NO one’s social security benefits would be impacted by it. Is that what we want?
Report comment to moderator
#27 Scott You’re right, gays will never be happy until we’re not treated as 2nd class citizens.
My point was not about rights, but about words defined in the English language. If you want to have a life-long relationship with a toaster, go right ahead. Just don’t call it marriage.
I didn’t realize you considered yourself gay. Now I understand your anger. You aren’t gay, of course. You are male, I presume. And the only other kind of person is female. There are no other kinds of humans. A homosexual is a person who identifies with certain behaviors.
You aren’t a 2nd class citizen. There is no such thing in America. Everyone is equal under the law. But that isn’t enough. You want to be more equal than others. You want to assign special rights to those who make certain behavioral choices.
What is to prevent nose pickers or tobacco chewers from co-opting special rights for themselves? One you declare any bizarre behavior to set you apart as a special class of citizen with special rights, there will be no end to loony claims to the same rights.
Polygamy is already becoming an issue again. Next people will want to marry children, animals and kitchen appliances.
I do not care if you call those things civil unions or pimp fests. Just don’t call it marriage. It isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (#34): AMEN!!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!