Bill to revoke and replace the Defense of Marriage Act introduced in Congress

On September 15, 2009 the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009 was introduced in the House of Representatives.

Introduced on September 15 by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) with an impressive 94 cosponsors already in tow, the Respect for Marriage Act has earned the support not only of former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law in 1996, but also of former Republican Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, who first introduced DOMA.

The new bill has also received the support of the US Conference of Mayors and a myriad of civil rights organizations, including the NAACP and the ACLU; and President Obama has frequently expressed his opposition to DOMA (although his Administration, paradoxically, has defended DOMA in court).

By repealing DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act would require federal recognition of any same-sex marriage that was legal in whichever state it was performed. This means the 18,000 gay couples who were legally married in California before the passage of Proposition 8 and the tens of thousands of other same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont and Connecticut will finally have access to the 1,138 federal rights and protections afforded to all married couples, such as tax-free spousal health benefits, spousal immigration rights, the right to take unpaid leave to care for a sick spouse, and spousal Social Security benefits.

Source.

While those States that bar Gay Marriage would still be allowed to do so, this legislation would grant equal federal rights to all those married where such marriages are legal. Thus, gay couples would be able to travel to those States that have legalized it, get married, return home and be eligible for all federal benefits and protections given to married couples.

Just one more step towards true equal rights for all citizens.

Really the states that do not allow same sex marriages wouldn't have any power at all.

It would be lilke a kid asking their mom if they could do something, she says no, the kid then goes to dad, the dad says yes and the kid gets his way.

The federal government is forcing the states to accept same sex marriages. Which isn't right either.

reply to post by jd140


No, they're not. The state would not be obligated to extend state level benefits to these couples. No joint state income tax, etc. Just Federal bene's.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


We will see.

I see this as a small step for the federal government to force states to recognize them as married couples and make them extend state benefits.

It's about damn time. Any other couple in the country can do this (get married in another state and have their legal marriage recognized in the state in which they reside), and same sex couples should be able to do so as well.

Some states may not want to legalize same-sex marriages, but they should at least recognize the ones that are performed legally in other states. Isn't that in the spirit of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution??

This harms no one and moves our country one step closer to seeing everyone as equal under the law.

It's sad that a bill has to be passed for this sort of thing. Future generations are going to look back in embarressment much like we do with segregation. I'm glad that I was born in a time when this sort of stuff is becoming not just acceptable but normal. If I ever have children they will never find it weird that same couples are married and I am proud of that.

The destruction of the nuclear family is close to completion. Thanks to Gay Rights, not only can homosexuals marry members of the opposite sex they can now marry members of the same sex! Equal rights wasn't good enough, but extra rights sweetens the deal.

I wonder who should be more happy, proponents of Gay Rights or TPTB?

Edit: After reading some following replies, this is all I have to say: can one be opposed to gay marriage without being labelled an open or closet homophobe?

[edit on 23/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]

After watching HBO's Big Love, polygamy sounds pretty good. Surely once gay marriage is allowed, those who wish to practice polygamy will no longer be discriminated against. Will the gay rights advocates pledge their support and solidarity to the polygamists?

[edit on 23-9-2009 by stevegmu]

reply to post by stevegmu


This is a rediculous strawman argument you you spout, and the one most presented by bigots who have no actual logic to support their stance.

3 consenting adults are not two consenting adults.
A goat, a rock, a kid, again not two consenting adults, nothing can be compared - two consenting adults are two consenting adults, period. That isn't so hard to understand. Equal rights are not a gateway to destroying the way legal contracts work, that argument is like a tattoo on the forehead of those that use it.

Exclusivity of a legal contract is a legal issue by default, ability to enter into legal contracts is a legal issue by default - the sexual organs of the people entering into that legal contract are not.

Haven't I told you all of this before?

reply to post by stevegmu


Thats just silly.

You know that everyone will always look down at being married to more than one person at a time. Who cares if you can't help loving to people at the same time.

reply to post by maus80


Right as I posted my above statement you went and proved my point.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
The destruction of the nuclear family is close to completion. Thanks to Gay Rights, not only can homosexuals marry members of the opposite sex they can now marry members of the same sex! Equal rights wasn't good enough, but extra rights sweetens the deal.

I wonder who should be more happy, proponents of Gay Rights or TPTB?

How is this "extra rights"? Please explain what extra rights are granted.

How is increasing the number of people who can have a "nuclear family" a destruction of that model?

Could you be clearer? You make zero sense here...

reply to post by maus80


Restricting marriage to 2 adults is discrimination. Why set the limit at 2? Women in polygamy have no legal rights over their 'husbands.' Why not grant them the same civil rights gays want?

reply to post by jd140


According to most polls, most people are against gay marriage, as well. Even California wouldn't pass it.

Originally posted by jd140
Right as I posted my above statement you went and proved my point.
Thanks.

So you are saying that by requiring that a legal contract be exclusive to two parties, the law "looks down on" those who wish to enter into non-exclusive contracts?

I guess I can see your point, but I don't see how I have proved it. Glad I could help, I suppose?

reply to post by stevegmu


Who cares what the majority wants.

Those who cry loudest and longest gets their way. Most of the time its the people who are in the minority.

I don't care about polygimists either. If they want to marry that I dont see the problem. The problem with that being, only men can have mutliple wives in the religion they practice. Women cannot have multiple husbands. So if women can't get the same thing then men shouldn't be allowed to ether. Most of the reason why it's illegal is because of the status that it's a mans thing, women don't have the same rights in that culture. The nuclear family started going away the second the first couple got divorced. The only reason we see so much of that now is because it used to be a big no no. You'd get cheated on like crazy and couldn't divorce your husband. But, if you looked at a guy you could be put on trial.

reply to post by maus80


I suppose you wouldnt see how you proved my point.

Thats okay, I didn't expect you to.

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by maus80

 

Restricting marriage to 2 adults is discrimination. Why set the limit at 2? Women in polygamy have no legal rights over their 'husbands.' Why not grant them the same civil rights gays want?

I don't know, why not make it illegal to sign exclusive legal contracts then? If legal contracts exist that have a finite number of allowable parties, that's obviously comparable to requirements involving holes and poles, right?

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by maus80

 

I suppose you wouldnt see how you proved my point.

Thats okay, I didn't expect you to.

Then I guess it's safe to say that you have proved that those who appose equal rights are condescending bigots. That's ok, I wouldn't expect you to be anything better.