Posts
Politico reports that U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, who announced in July he would be working on a partial repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), will be ready to circulate his bill to his colleagues to garner support in a matter of weeks, putting the Obama Administration on the spot. Politico believes it will garner dozens of co-sponsors.At the time he announced his intention to work on repealing the 1996 DOMA, Nadler told the Bay Area Reporter that the repeal would only extend to marriage and not civil unions and domestic partnerships, meaning that only those legally married will receive federal benefits.
Also, the bill looks to only repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which restricts the government from recognizing any marriages other than heterosexual. Section 2 will most likely remain, which allows states to decide whether or not to legalize marriage equality within its borders. (Correction: Section numbers were reversed earlier. Repeal would pertain to Section 3 of DOMA, restricting federal recognition.)
Nadler confirmed there would be a "certainty provision." This would ensure that any same-sex couple who moved from a state that recognizes their marriage to one that does not that the federal government would still extend federal benefits to that marriage.
With the Obama Administration constantly using double-speak when approaching DOMA, it will be interesting to see if the president will live up to his promises to support a congressional repeal of DOMA.
This time, Obama will not be able to eloquently talk his way out of this situation - he'll either support it or he won't. With so much riding on his presidency right now - health care reform, two wars to end, the economy - he needs as much political equity that he can get his hands on. I want to believe that he's a man of his word. We'll find out.
this is repeal of the Act -it only a bone being throw your way -so we'll go away
ReplyDeleteSo, it wouldn't change the fact that if you're a resident in a state that has marriage equality and get married in that state, and then later move, your marriage will not necessarily be recognized by the state you move to?
ReplyDeleteIf that's the case - not good enough. The federal benefits are a big deal, yes. But the rest of DOMA is still in violation of the constitution.
Good news... But why only a partial repeal? What part of equality do the Democrats not understand?
ReplyDeleteWonderful... so this is an unequal equality? I don't really get it, it's either constitutional or unconstitutional, or can it be 50-50? If I am treated partially equally, I am still not being treated equally, or am I... nope....but yup.... but... equal means equal? or almost equal? equal = same? From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English:
ReplyDeleteEquality: a situation in which people have the same rights, advantages etc... yup, it said SAME, which means SAME, which means EQUAL, which means NO DIFFERENT... am I going crazy or is it that politicians don't understand a simple word such as... EQUAL! = SAME!
"Also, the bill looks to only repeal Section 2 of DOMA, which restricts the government from recognizing any marriages other than heterosexual. Section 3 will most likely remain, which allows states to decide whether or not to legalize marriage equality within its borders."
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you have the Sections right? I thought Section 3 restricts the federal government from recognizing our relationships, while Section 2 allows states to decide recognize marriage equality.
Hence this would be equivalent to the lawsuit against DOMA Section 3 by the Mass. AG.
You are correct UAFA. Post has been corrected. And yes, it is similar in scope to the MA AG's lawsuit against DOMA.
ReplyDelete