No Action on DOMA Repeal Until 2013

CORRECTION: No real action until 2013! "...lawmakers ... could take up legislation to repeal DOMA — known as the Respect for Marriage Act — at the end of the two-year session starting in 2011."

U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) in September, and if it passes, it will effectively repeal the heinous 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a piece of knee-jerk legislation from Congress fearing that the near success of marriage equality in Hawaii at the time would spread through the nation like some plague.

Don't get me started.

However, up to this point, we haven't had much of a time line for RMA. Last month, Nadler spokesperson John Doty said, "I think there’s three or four gay rights bills that are cued up. The Respect for Marriage Act is a little bit further down that list. It hasn’t been talked about as long or debated as long … as the other bills."

Rep. Barney Frank agreed. "...marriage is the toughest of these issues. That’s why I do not see any chance of any success on marriage in the Congress this year. Neither does anyone else, by the way, no matter what people pretend to make people feel better. But that’s why we’re focusing on these other issues."

Today, the DC Agenda has posted its interview with Nadler and he talks timing. Nadler says a DOMA repeal won't happen in this Congress and instead he will focus on building support for the issue and then take it up in 2011 after elections, and maybe then not until the end of that term. In the meantime, they will focus on other pro-LGBT legislation taking precedence, such as ENDA and DADT repeal, which they hope to accomplish by the end of 2010.

“The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill that we can’t pass right now; we know we can’t pass it right now,” he said. Currently, it has 105 co-sponsors.

Nadler told the DC Agenda that he believes support will grow, and despite not showing too much enthusiasm to the public, he says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been quietly encouraging her colleagues to sign on a co-sponsors.

As for Rep. Frank: “We have a disagreement on the strategy on this obviously, as we had a disagreement on the strategy over the non-inclusive ENDA last [Congress] where we no longer have that disagreement,” he said. “And, I presume, in the end, we will not have a disagreement on this.”

Even with Democrats potentially in danger, Nadler said he didn’t think lawmakers would avoid LGBT issues next year to reduce a perceived risk of alienating voters before the election.

“I think we’re going to face most of these issues this Congress, mostly next year,” he said. “I’m assuming that the gay community is going to keep the pressure on. I mean, don’t go to sleep because I said it as that. If the gay community keeps the pressure on, then I think that, yes, we’ll probably face most of these issues.”

Don't worry, Rep. Nadler. We aren't going anywhere.

GLAD Requests Summary Judgment On Lawsuit Against DOMA, Countering DOJ's Motion to Dismiss Case

Back in March, GLAD filed a lawsuit against Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which restricts the federal government from recognizing any marriages other than heterosexual. Section 2 of DOMA, not at issue in this lawsuit, allows states to establish public policies about what marriages they will and will not respect. The GLAD case was filed as Gil vs. the Office of Personnel Management.

On September 18, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit asking the courts to throw the case out arguing that DOMA must stand using "rational basis review," or the lowest level of judiciary scrutiny on the case.

America Blog reported, "All the government must do is prove a 'rational basis' for the legislation meaning 'a legislative policy must be upheld so long as there is any reason- ably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for it, including ones that Congress itself did not advance or consider. DOMA satisfies this standard.'"

I wrote at the time:

I find it striking that the Department of Justice (DOJ) used the rational basis argument given that recently, the proponents of Proposition 8 just filed a motion for summary judgment to avoid going to trial on the federal case against the initiative. One of their arguments rest on the rational basis argument (which relies heavily on past rulings and tradition), stating that gays and lesbians are not warranted heightened scrutiny (which requires evaluation of found facts and witness testimony to determine if a law harms or helps state interest) - a stark disagreement with the California Supreme Court ruling in the marriage cases which classified gays and lesbians as suspect, putting us in the same category as race and gender among others.

Today, GLAD has responded to the DOJ by filing for a summary judgment itself. This is the same tactic used by the defendants of Prop 8 to avoid going to trial. However, on this case, this works for us.

GLAD wants the judge to issue a ruling in its favor based on law without trial. However, unlike the defendants of Prop 8 and the DOJ who do not want heightened scrutiny, GLAD does because it reveals more of the discriminatory motivations behind DOMA, thus proving there is no rational basis for it and the government should not uphold it.

No federal court has reviewed sexual orientation with heightened scrutiny. If the court agrees and reviews before the Prop 8 trial in January, it will be the first to do so.

Following is GLAD's press release (PDF):

GLAD Forcefully Responds to U.S. Motion to Dismiss DOMA Lawsuit; Seeks Final Ruling in Favor of Plaintiff Couples

Stepping up its litigation challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts both an opposition to the federal government's motion to dismiss Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, and a motion for summary judgment seeking a final ruling on the law in favor of the plaintiffs.

"Both sides agree that our plaintiffs have taken on the commitments of marriage, played by the rules, paid into the system, and been denied benefits because of DOMA," says GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck.

"Now we're asking the court to say once and for all that the federal government must end its blatant double standard of providing rights and protections to all married couples except gay and lesbian married couples."

"While the government has rightly abandoned the reasons Congress relied on in passing DOMA in 1996, it now seeks to dismiss our case by arguing that DOMA "maintains the status quo," says Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD Civil Rights Project Director.

"The reality is that DOMA itself radically changed the status quo by which the federal government recognized and accepted state determinations of who is married. There is no valid excuse for the federal discrimination imposed by DOMA and this can be resolved now and without a trial."

GLAD argues that under Equal Protection guarantees, there is no justification for splitting married people into two classes: those who are "married" under federal law and those whose marriages do not exist for any federal purposes. "We believe that DOMA should receive 'heightened scrutiny' from the District Court for many reasons, including because it deliberately targets gay men and lesbians," said Bonauto.

More specifically, GLAD argues that

• DOMA represents an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into the states’ traditional roles in determining the marital status of its citizens.
• By prohibiting married same-sex couples from accessing the safety net, the federal government provides for all other married couples, DOMA Section 3 unfairly burdens their ability to protect and care for their families.
• By targeting gay men and lesbians, DOMA discriminates explicitly on the basis of sexual orientation. GLAD argues that any discrimination based upon a person’s sexual orientation should be viewed with suspicion by the court.
  

America Blog was available for a press conference call with GLAD that I was unable to make. They report, "Several reporters asked whether this case could ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. If it does, according to the GLAD lawyers, the ruling would impact only those states that allow same-sex marriage and would determine whether the federal government would have to respect those marriages. If the judge does find DOMA unconstitutional, it's expected that the Obama administration would appeal that ruling."

The following are PDF downloads:

• Motion
• Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment
• Statement of Non-Adjudicative Facts
• Statement of Undisputed Facts

Here you will find plaintiff and expert affidavits supporting GLAD's arguments. The submission of these testimonies will be permissible under heightened scrutiny.

UPDATE: Department of Justice Argues No Fundamental Right Exists for Federal Gay Marriage Benefits

UPDATE: Brief added at bottom of post. H/T to Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry.

Earlier on Unite the Fight I reported that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley sued the federal government for discriminating against legally wed, same-sex couples because it did not extend federal marriage benefits upon them.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), under the Obama Administration, has responded with a filing in court claiming the federal government cannot be forced to extend such benefits and cites the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as its reason.

The AP reports:

The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.

The law "does not prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, nor does it prohibit the states from acknowledging same-sex marriages," according to the court filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

Massachusetts, the filing continues, is trying to claim individuals have a right to federal benefits based on marital status.

"There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits," according to the 36-page filing.

DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler went on to tell the AP that any state "can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits."

"Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses," she said.

Like I and many others have said before, precedent has shown that an administration can choose not to defend a law that it believes to be unconstitutional (Reagan, Bush, Clinton). And since Obama does believe it is unconstitutional, I do not understand why he and his DOJ can say in one breath, "We don't like this law but we're going to defend it."

Let's top this off with quoting America Blog: "...this White House has already refused to enforce laws it didn't like - on immigration and medical marijuana - so don't lecture us about how you had to side with the religious right because of your respect for the rule of law. We simply weren't important enough."

Obama has stepped it up more lately, such as passing hate crimes legislation. I'm grateful. But this is such an affront to what the Supreme Court has already said is a fundamental right.

If he truly believes it's discriminatory, then isn't it hypocritical to defend it?
Brief Defending DOMA in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services

Sen. John Kerry Backs New Lawsuit Against DOMA Involving Bi-National Couple

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

David Mixner Gives Call to Action: Stop the gAyTM For All Democrats Not Supporting DOMA Repeal

Last month, Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced the DOMA repeal legislation, the Respect for Marriage Act. Many House Democrats have jumped on board as co-sponsors, but sadly, not all, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and openly gay Barney Frank.

On his blog today, David Mixner lists all the co-sponsors and gives a call to action, stating "There is simply no reason why every Democrat is not on that list and also some of our Republicans allies. If you see your Congressperson's name missing below, get a group of your fellow activists and friends and go see them in person. Call. E-mail. Refuse to contribute to any Democrat that is not on this legislation to repeal DOMA."

The list:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1]
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1]
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24]
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2]
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31]
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1]
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28]
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3]
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1]
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23]
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8]
Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11]
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32]
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2]
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7]
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53]
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1]
Rep Delahunt, Bill [MA-10]
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3]
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14]
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4]
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5]
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17]
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17]
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2]
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4]
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19]
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23]
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1]
Rep Himes, James A. [CT-4]
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22]
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2]
Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2]
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15]
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2]
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4]
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1]
Rep Kilroy, Mary Jo [OH-15]
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10]
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1]
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9]
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5]
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16]
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18]
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3]
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9]
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25]
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14]
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7]
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5]
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4]
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6]
Rep Miller, George [CA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5]
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC]
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1]
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6]
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4]
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10]
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1]
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2]
Rep Quigley, Mike [IL-5]
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15]
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9]
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34]
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39]
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3]
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [VA-3]
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16]
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7]
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1]
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6]
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21]
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10]
Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20]
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33]
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30]
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9]
Rep Welch, Peter [VT]
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19]
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6]
Rep Wu, David [OR-1]

ACTION: Don't know who your representative is? Go here, find out, and if they're not on the list above, demand they support the Respect for Marriage Act and don't give them money until they do!

Lambda Legal Describes What the DOMA Repeal, Respect for Marriage Act, Will Do For Us

Lambda Legal helpfully goes into detail how the DOMA repeal Respect for Marriage Act will benefit us if it passes.

Lambda Legal-Respect for Marriage Act Benefits

Obama Administration Defends DOMA Again by Filing to Dismiss Powerful Federal Case Against It

UPDATE: Pam's House Blend reports on an email from GLAD: "So, at this point we have 14 days to file an opposition to the motion dismiss. The government will then file a reply to our opposition. After that, our first hearing will be scheduled, and we can expect that to take place early next year. Having said all of that, it's possible that both sides will get and receive extensions on that schedule."

Obama's Administration defended the Defense of Marriage Act again by filing a brief today seeking a dismissal of one of the strongest federal cases against the discriminatory law, Gil vs. the Office of Personnel Management.

Joe Sudbay of America Blog reports:

...the Department of Justice is defending DOMA with an array of legal arguments. Importantly, the DOJ thinks DOMA should be subject to the "rational basis review,' which is the lowest level of judicial scrutiny. All the government must do is prove a "rational basis" for the legislation meaning "a legislative policy must be upheld so long as there is any reason- ably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for it, including ones that Congress itself did not advance or consider. DOMA satisfies this standard."

The brief does reiterate Obama's opposition to DOMA.

As the President has stated previously, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.1 The law of this Circuit requires that this Court find that DOMA is constitutionally permissible because Congress could reasonably have concluded that DOMA is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.

2009 09 18 DOMA DOJ Motion to Dismiss

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who filed the case, issued the following press release:

The Department of Justice has filed a motion to dismiss today in Gill v. Office of Personnel Development, GLAD's lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD's Civil Rights Project Director and co-lead counsel in Gill, said "Nothing in the government's brief addresses the fact that DOMA is the sole exception in a long history of the federal government deferring to the states' determination that people are married. Obviously we disagree with any argument that DOMA is constitutional. Married same-sex couples are being treated differently from other married couples. To us, that's a clear-cut violation of the promise of equal protection."

Gary Buseck, GLAD's Legal Director said, "We're seeking justice for the widows and widowers who are denied death benefits, for people who can't get on their spouse's health plan, for parents who can't file taxes jointly and pay thousands extra each year that they could put away for their children's education or family emergencies."

"There is nothing in the brief that we are unprepared to deal with," added Bonauto. "We're pleased that the issues have now been joined and the case is moving toward resolution, because every day, an increasing number of families - not just our plaintiffs - are being harmed by DOMA. We're confident in the justice of our cause and the strength of our case."

GLAD filed its challenge to DOMA Section 3 in U.S. District Court on March 3, 2009, and filed an amended complaint in July on behalf of 8 Massachusetts married couples and 3 widowers who have been harmed by the law. In July, GLAD scored its first victory in the case when the State Department changed its passport name change policy and plaintiff Keith Toney was for the first time able to get a passport in his correct, married name.

Gill has been described as "a carefully planned case quietly underway in Massachusetts federal court [that] could be the gay marriage test with the greatest national impact" by the National Law Journal. More information on the case is available at www.glad.org/doma. The DOJ brief can be read at http://tinyurl.com/gill-doj-mtd .

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal organization devoted to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

I find it striking that the Department of Justice (DOJ) used the rational basis argument given that recently, the proponents of Proposition 8 just filed a motion for summary judgment to avoid going to trial on the federal case against the initiative. One of their arguments rest on the rational basis argument (which relies heavily on past rulings and tradition), stating that gays and lesbians are not warranted heightened scrutiny (which requires evaluation of found facts and witness testimony to determine if a law harms or helps state interest) - a stark disagreement with the California Supreme Court ruling in the marriage cases which classified gays and lesbians as suspect, putting us in the same category as race and gender among others.

This article, by a supporter of marriage equality, examines an Constitutional argument, not a policy argument, of rational basis and how that approach is beneficial to "traditional" marriage. It's an interesting look at the difference between rational basis arguments and heightened scrutiny approaches.

And don't worry. I'm not a legal scholar, and I'm able to follow all these legal arguments and documents. It's just important that we understand how our rights are being analyzed and argued in court. The rational basis vs. scrutiny conflict is key to how our rights are won.

Rep. Blumenauer: Voting for DOMA Was "Worst Vote of My Political Career." Help Repeal It!

In a honest piece on the Huffington Post, Oregon U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer wrote, "On July 12, 1996, I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I've made other mistakes, this was different: it was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values."

Reading it was heart-wrenching. In what can only be described as "confessional," Blumenauer admits to sacrificing the "civil rights and identity" of LGBT people nationwide in an effort to move past the miasma of the Gingrich-Daley Congress of the time.

Blumenauer is determined to right his wrongs and will not only vote for the DOMA repeal 'Respect for Marriage Act', but he will also work to get his colleagues to do the same.

You can help Blumenauer in a variety of ways.

Go to Change.org and sign a letter sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign that will go to your representative, urging them to support the Respect for Marriage Act.

You can also reach your representative through the Courage Campaign.

Tell Blumenauer thank you through Twitter. Michael Jones as Change.org suggests, ". . . feel free to send him a message on Twitter - @RepBlumenauer. Might we suggest, "@RepBlumenauer thanks for switching your position on the Defense of Marriage Act and working to end discrimination."

VIDEO: Watch Rep. Nadler Introduce the DOMA Repeal, 'Respect for Marriage Act.'

Yesterday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler and fellow U.S. Representatives introduced the full DOMA repeal, the Respect for Marriage Act. Below is the video of Nadler at the press conference.



Here is a family explaining how DOMA affects them personally.

BREAKING NEWS: FULL Repeal of DOMA Introduced to U.S. House Called the 'Respect for Marriage Act'

Today U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), along with Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) Jared Polis (D-CO), John Lewis (D-GA) and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), introduced the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) at a press conference, and contrary to earlier reports that it was a partial repeal, what was introduced today is a FULL repeal of all three sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). So far, the bill has 91 co-sponsors.

From Nadler's press release:

The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families.

The Respect for Marriage Act, the consensus of months of planning and organizing among the nation’s leading LGBT and civil rights stakeholders and legislators, would ensure that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples with much-needed certainty that their lawful marriages will be honored under federal law and that they will have the same access to federal responsibilities and rights as all other married couples.

The Respect of Marriage Act would accomplish this by repealing DOMA in its entirety and by adopting the place-of-celebration rule recommended in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which embraces the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized. While this rule governs recognition of marriage for purposes of federal law, marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided by each state.


The Respect for Marriage Act would not tell any state who can marry or how married couples must be treated for purposes of state law, and would not obligate any person, church, city or state to celebrate or license a marriage of two people of the same sex. It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple’s marriage for purposes of state law.

-------

“The full repeal of DOMA is long overdue,” said Rep. Nadler. “When DOMA was passed in 1996, its full harm may not have been apparent to all Members of Congress because same-sex couples were not yet able to marry. It was a so-called ‘defense’ against a hypothetical harm. This made it easy for our opponents to demonize gay and lesbian families. Now, in 2009, we have tens of thousands of married same-sex couples in this country, living openly, raising families and paying taxes in states that have granted them the right to marry, and it has become abundantly clear that, while the sky has not fallen on the institution of marriage, as DOMA supporters had claimed, DOMA is causing these couples concrete and lasting harm. Discrimination against committed couples and stable families is terrible federal policy. But, with a President who is committed to repealing DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law.”

The rest of the press release contains inspirational quotes from fellow Representatives, Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Kevin Cathcart of Lambda Legal.

The Advocate reports that at the press conference, Nadler read a statement from President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law in 1996, thanking the Representatives for introducing RMA.

“Throughout my life I have opposed discrimination of any kind," Clinton said in the statement. "When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy.”

The bill will repeal all three sections of DOMA, which are:

1. The federal definition of marriage being between one man and one woman.
2. Allows states to ignore other state's recognition of same-sex marriage.
3. Prohibits federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages.
   

As Rep. Baldwin put it at the press conference, "The legislation we're introducing today will legally extend to legally married same-sex couples the same federal rights and recognitions now offered to heterosexual couples -- nothing more, nothing less."

However, states will still have the right to not recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, a right they have always had in regards to any and all marriages performed outside their borders.

“States would have to apply the normal principles of comity, which dictate when you recognize the actions of another state,” explained Nadler. “Under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, the conclusion might be that in some cases they recognize it and in some cases, they don’t.”

In an effort to address this, the bill contains a "certainty" provision which guarantees a married same-sex couple that federal benefits will follow them wherever they live, even in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage.

This "certainty" provision was one of the reasons that openly gay Rep. Barney Frank declined to cosponsor the bill, claiming he's against the strategy which could cause resistance in Congress and that it's confusing. Frank is placing his bets on the federal case against DOMA filed by GLAD.

Congressman Polis disregarded Frank's views, saying at the press conference, "Whether this takes a year, six months, three years, what we're accomplishing here today is getting the ball rolling."

Naturally, our friends at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is up in arms over the bill's introduction. In an email sent out today asking members for money to fight this development, Executive Director Brian Brown wrote:

We've known this day would come. President Obama has been advocating the repeal of DOMA since his first day in office. Gay marriage activists have debated the strategy and timing for pushing the bill in Congress.

And we're ready. Already, we are more than 500,000 strong as Americans from every walk of life have joined our ranks to stand firm against radical efforts to force same-sex marriage in every state. Our goal is 2 million Americans by the end of 2010. If each of us were to tell just three friends about TwoMillionforMarriage.com, we'd reach our goal in mere days.

Now it's time to speak truth to power! Gay marriage advocates are divided on DOMA -- even Rep. Barney Frank thinks the DOMA repeal bill is overreaching and has refused to support it. Now is our chance to send a clear message to Congress that will galvanize opposition to the DOMA repeal, and help sway those who are on the fence. The message is simple: Don't mess with marriage.

Just a few years ago, gay marriage advocates spoke of "state's rights" and a "gay marriage experiment" in a handful of states. Obviously, they didn't believe a word of it, and today they want to force same-sex marriage on every state in the nation, "like it or not."

Marriage isn't about inside-the-Beltway opportunism, or scoring political points. It's about honesty and integrity. Protecting children and religious liberty.

Pam's House Blend has a list of many more official responses to the bill.

Currently no equivalent bill in the Senate has been introduced, but sources of the Advocate claim the Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York are in discussions.

Read HRC's survey results on the effects of DOMA.

Rep. Barney Frank Won't Co-Sponsor DOMA Partial Repeal; Bill Author Rep. Nadler Responds

Openly gay Rep. Barney Frank has declined to co-sponsor Rep. Jerry Nadler's partial Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) repeal because he doesn't believe in the strategy and feels different issues are more pressing for the LGBT population.

"It's not anything that's achievable in the near term," Frank told the Washington Blade. "I think getting [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], a repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and full domestic partner benefits for federal employees will take up all of what we can do and maybe more in this Congress."

Frank also believes that the "certainty provision" of the repeal will cause more problems than fix. This provision will allow federal benefits to follow a married same-sex couple no matter if they live in a state that recognizes their marriage or if they move to one that doesn't.

"The provision that says you can take your benefits as you travel, I think, will stir up unnecessary opposition with regard to the question of are you trying to export it to other states," he said. "If we had a chance to pass that, it would be a different story, but I don't think it's a good idea to rekindle that debate when there's no chance of passage in the near term."

Frank believes the best offense against DOMA lies in two federal cases against the discriminatory bill. The first being the GLAD case Gil vs. Office of Personnel Management, which is aiming at Section 3 of DOMA which restricts federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The second case also aims at Section 3 which was filed by Massachusetts' Attorney General Martha Coakley, which claims that the federal government is interfering with Massachusetts' right to define marriage as it sees fit and as a result, discriminating against the state's legally married same-sex couples.

Rep. Nadler responded to Frank's concerns in a statement issued to the Blade, saying that such concerns shouldn't stop the bill's introduction.

"Mr. Frank knows better than anyone that our opponents will falsely claim that any DOMA repeal bill 'exports marriage' in an effort to generate fear and misunderstanding," Nadler said. "But the dishonest tactics of our opponents should not stop us from aggressively pushing to end this horrific discrimination now, as is the consensus of the nation's top LGBT groups who all support this approach."

Nadler emphasized that the proposed bill wouldn't force any state to marry gay couples or recognize same-sex couples under state law.

"Our bill allows states to continue deciding those questions, while ensuring uniform access to critically important federal responsibilities and rights that hinge on marriage and upon which all married couples should be able to rely," he said.

I am not one to question Barney Frank. His intelligence speaks volumes. But I feel that all valid efforts to win equal rights should be supported, especially right now when our chances are the best they've been in years with a Democratically controlled Congress and (this is debatable) an ally in the White House.

Though I do agree the federal cases against DOMA are smart and very powerful, to use this and the fact that Congress is too busy are very lame excuses.

As the always quotable Martin Luther King Jr. said, "A right delayed is a right denied." Oh, and "The time is always right to do what is right."

Doesn't mean it will always be pretty and that it won't cause confusion, but it's still right.

DOMA Repeal Bill to Be Introduced Early Next Week; HRC Delivers Survey to Congress Showing Overwhelming Support for Repeal

The Advocate reports that Rep. Jerry Nadler's bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act will be introduced Tuesday, September 15. A source told them "the bill currently has just over 50 cosponsors, but Congressman Nadler’s office has not yet officially circulated a letter to his fellow House members."

A press release from the Human Rights Campaign:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today launched a campaign to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies legally married same-sex couples more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities. As part of the campaign, HRC launched a national action alert, an interactive website, RepealDOMAnow.org, and delivered to Congress nearly 50,000 survey responses showing the concrete harms DOMA brings to the lives of LGBT Americans and their families. A bill is expected to be introduced in the U.S. House as early as next week. To view HRC Legislative Director Allison Herwitt delivering the surveys to Congress visit www.HRCBackStory.org.

"Now is the time to let Congress and President Obama know that DOMA must go. The introduction of a bill to repeal DOMA with this unprecedented momentum behind it will mark a tidal shift in this fight," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "This hurtful and discriminatory law denies millions of Americans federal recognition of marriage and the critical rights and benefits that come with it - Social Security survivors' benefits, equal treatment under U.S. immigration laws, the right to take leave to care for a spouse, and more. It is more important than ever to push for repeal of DOMA."

Nearly 50,000 people participated in a membership survey commissioned in August by the Human Rights Campaign that asked a series of questions on DOMA repeal. To view the survey, visit: www.hrc.org/DOMASurvey.

In the past year, tens of thousands of loving same-sex couples have legally been married in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. And with new laws soon to take effect in New Hampshire and Maine, thousands more will surely join them. Enacted in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act purports to allow states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

DOMA also creates a federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" for the first time in our country's history. This is an unprecedented intrusion by the U.S. Congress into an area traditionally left to the states. Marriage is defined as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," and spouse is defined as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Marriages that do not fit this description are not be eligible for any benefits offered by the federal government. Under DOMA, even same-sex couples lawfully married under the laws of their states are ineligible for numerous rights, benefits, and responsibilities, including those related to Social Security, immigration, family and medical leave, joint taxation, federal employee benefits and many more.

ACTION: Send an email to President Obama and Congress, urging them to Repeal DOMA Now!

Defense of Marriage Act Repeal Bill to Circulate U.S. House in Weeks

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.

Federal Judge Throws Out Defense of Marriage Act Case That Caused Tension Between Obama and LGBT Population

A federal judge today has thrown out a case that is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) due to a technicality. The Smelt case was filed by a Californian couple claiming that DOMA discriminates against gays and lesbians and consequentially, is unconstitutional.

The Washington Post reports:

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled the case - the first of several pending challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act - must be refiled in federal court.

Carter said the suit had been improperly filed in state court before it was transferred to his jurisdiction. As a result, the judge said, he would not entertain arguments on its merits, at least not yet.

"There is no point for us to go down the line of decision-making and waste time," he said during the hearing in Santa Ana.

The case caused a huge rift between the LGBT population and the Obama administration when the Department of Justice filed a brief which invoked incest and pedophilia when categorizing same-sex marriage, declaring that it was not in the best interest of the government to recognize such relationships.

A more recent brief filed by the DOJ on the case attempted to make amends by stating the Obama administration believes that DOMA is in fact discriminatory and should be repealed, a stance taken by Obama during his campaign. This was met with mixed reaction from the LGBT population. Though many were happy that for the first time the administration was on court record as being against the legislation, the DOJ went on to defend it, furthering the contradictions exhibited by the administration on LGBT rights since coming to power near eight months ago.

Alliance Defense Fund attorney, Brian Raum, who is working with the government to defend DOMA, stated that Carter had grounds to dismiss the case.

The federal government cannot be sued in state courts, Raum said.

Smelt and Hammer's lawsuit could be back in a federal court in a matter of months, when "ultimately it will come down to the merits," he said.

CNN: Tobias Wolff and NOM's Maggie Gallagher Debate Marriage Equality

On Thursday Tobias Wolff, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, faced of with the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight.

In the debate, Maggie cannot come up with an answer to the question about how same-sex marriage assaults the "institution" of marriage. She also blames "four judges in Massachusetts" for "gay marriage" not "homosexuals." Huh? I see, so then I can blame the government for the high divorce rate in this country because it enacted divorce laws, not the cheating spouses that cause many divorces. Rock on.



Transcript:

DOBBS: Another promise made by the president during his campaign, to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The Clinton-era law recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, allows states to ignore same- sex marriages from other states and withholds federal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Here now to debate the issue on our face-off tonight is Maggie Gallagher. She is the president of the National Organization for Marriage.

Good to have you with us, Maggie.

MAGGIE GALLAGHER, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE: Thank you.

DOBBS: And Tobias Wolff, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Good to have you with us.

TOBIAS WOLFF, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Let's turn to first what the administration said in its brief in defending the act this week. It reads, "The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed," that according to the Justice Department.

Maggie, you say you were shocked by this brief. Why so?

GALLAGHER: Well, there's two issues of trust. One is, yes, it's true the Obama -- the candidate had a position paper that he's against the Defense of Marriage Act. But he also went in a big publicized interview, and he promised the American people in an interview with Rick Warren that although he's for equal rights for gay people, he doesn't include marriage among them. And now his administration is filing a brief saying the one federal law that defends marriage as one man and one woman is discriminatory.

But there's a second level of trust here. I mean, both gay marriage advocates and gay marriage opponents are concerned because this is a brief in which the administration says it's against DOMA and then pretends that it's trying to defend it.

More...

DOBBS: Right. OK.

GALLAGHER: But there's more shocking things in there than what you said on the stage.

DOBBS: All right. Well, we're going to get to those. We're going to get to those.

GALLAGHER: Sure, OK. Thanks.

DOBBS: Tobias, your reaction? Do you agree with what Maggie said?

WOLFF: Well, I don't. And let's be clear about what this statute is about. There are six states right now and a bunch of folks in California as well -- six states that allow gay and lesbian couples to get married. This is about whether those couples are going to be discriminated against by the federal government. This has nothing to do with the federal government telling states what they have to do in their marriage policies.

DOBBS: Well, here's the Justice Department saying it's discriminatory.

WOLFF: Absolutely.

DOBBS: And at the same time defending it.

WOLFF: Well, I'll tell you the Justice Department is...

DOBBS: Work us through -- work through that one.

WOLFF: They are in a rotten situation here. And here is why. They want this statute repealed, as does the president and his administration. There is a longstanding tradition that the Justice Department...

DOBBS: Then why not do it?

WOLFF: Well, there's a difference between repealing a statute, which the president is working with Congress to do right now...

DOBBS: Yes.

WOLFF: And by the way, it's part of the Democratic party platform to get rid of this statute. It's time for Congress to step up to the plate and start working on it. There's a difference between that and what the Justice Department's obligation is when there's a constitutional challenge brought to a statute.

DOBBS: Right.

WOLFF: Now, let me just say...

DOBBS: Let me just interrupt, if I may.

WOLFF: Yes, sir.

DOBBS: This is where the economists describe President Obama. Barack Obama tends to become incoherent when discussing gay rights. During the campaign he said he supported equal rights for gays, but also that marriage should be between a man and a woman. How do you -- you know, I mean, what you say is fine. But wouldn't marriage be a fundamental right? And why would there be any equivocation?

WOLFF: Well, let me tell you, Lou. I agree with you about that. And I spent a lot of time working for the campaign and having respectful (ph)...

DOBBS: Well, I'm not taking a position. I'm just asking...

WOLFF: Well, I hear you. But what the Defense of Marriage Act is about is not telling states who's allowed to get married and who's not. What it's about is whether the federal government is going to discriminate against couples who are legally married in their states.

DOBBS: Well, it says here...

WOLFF: It's about...

DOBBS: ... the Justice Department says it's discriminatory.

WOLFF: Absolutely.

DOBBS: But they're going to defend it.

That's a bizarre position, Maggie, for them to be in and for the government to be in. Isn't it?

GALLAGHER: Well, even worse is they're pretending to defend it. But in response to pressure from political groups, they've changed their argument. The federal government is now saying the Obama administration is telling the courts in your behalf and mine that the government has no interest at all in bringing together biological parents to raise their children together.

It is repudiating the idea that marriage has anything to do with mothers and fathers raising children together, which is the one great argument that all the liberal courts who have upheld marriage: New York, Maryland, Washington. They've always done it on that reason.

DOBBS: May I ask a...

GALLAGHER: So it's very deceptive, I think, what he's doing.

DOBBS: Yes, well, it's deceptive. It's confounding in terms of reason. Of all of the things that I have seen over the course of my career, you know, listening as an assault on heterosexual marriage, I have never seen -- and you correct me. I mean, where does gay marriage stand? Where is it in the queue for threat against heterosexual marriage?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think...

DOBBS: And what is the causal relationship?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think that when the government changes the definition of marriage, it changes for everyone. And when the government says the idea that marriage...

DOBBS: No, I'm not (inaudible) about -- no, no, no. Excuse me, please.

GALLAGHER: Yes.

DOBBS: I'm not asking -- I'm not asking anybody to change the definition of anything. I'm just asking you how is a heterosexual couple in marriage in any way assaulted by a homosexual couple in marriage.

GALLAGHER: Well, because the government has changed what marriage is. For a lot of us, Lou, a marriage is a husband and wife. And the government is proposing to change that.

DOBBS: Right.

GALLAGHER: The Obama administration is saying that idea is discriminatory. Our children are going to be taught that by public schools, that our ideas of marriage are discriminatory.

DOBBS: OK.

GALLAGHER: It's hard enough to raise, you know, people...

DOBBS: All right.

WOLFF: Let's bring this down.

GALLAGHER: It's hard enough to get men and women together to do this thing without our government saying and the Obama administration saying the idea itself is discriminatory.

DOBBS: Well, my God. I'm sorry.

WOLFF: Let's bring this down to some real specifics. This is about couples who have been together for 30 years being denied their full Social Security benefits. This is about couples being denied access to health care. This is about couples who are being denied equal treatment in the tax laws after they've spent their entire lives...

DOBBS: But you would have that if you had civil union.

WOLFF: ... paying federal taxes.

DOBBS: You would have that if you had civil unions.

WOLFF: What you have...

DOBBS: See, those arguments are not particularly persuasive.

WOLFF: Not true. Let me make sure you understand.

DOBBS: Please do.

WOLFF: This is about the federal government taking couples who are legally married and saying we are not going to give you equal access to the Social Security benefits that every married couple in this country is entitled to.

GALLAGHER: Listen, if...

WOLFF: That's what this is about.

GALLAGHER: ... the only trouble.

WOLFF: That's what this is about.

GALLAGHER: If you have a trouble with Social Security, you could amend that act. You don't need to go into court...

DOBBS: All right.

WOLFF: Well, Ms. Gallagher, are you out there?

GALLAGHER: ... and say that marriage itself is discriminatory.

WOLFF: Are you out there trying to fight for equal treatment for gay and lesbian couples in Social Security?

GALLAGHER: What I'm trying to fight for -- it's funny that you talk about the tradition...

WOLFF: Are you the one who's going to take away Social Security benefits from gay and lesbian couples?

GALLAGHER: ... of the Justice Department.

WOLFF: Are you the one who's going to take health care benefits away from people who need them?

GALLAGHER: I am the one who is standing for the right of American taxpayers not to have a union, same-sex union treated as marriage without their consent.

DOBBS: OK, I...

WOLFF: And there are six states that have said that they want gay and lesbian couples to be treated equally in our marriage laws.

GALLAGHER: And the federal government overwhelmingly...

WOLFF: And the federal government should step out of the way.

GALLAGHER: The federal government overwhelmingly, bipartisanly said the federal definition of marriage is one man and one woman. And I support that. And I think the Obama administration should live up to its campaign promise to support marriage and change its mind.

WOLFF: They should absolutely live up to their promise to repeal this statute, yes.

DOBBS: Well, apparently there are two promises here implicit that would satisfy one of you or the other, but not both. Let me again go to this thing because the Defense of Marriage is sort of a peculiar construction. When the primary, as everything I've been able to study -- the primary reason for divorce is financial. One in two marriages in this country, heterosexual marriages, ends in divorce.

We are watching two-thirds in some cases of children born out of wedlock. We have a disaster in this country. And, I mean, it could be argued, it seems to me, at least -- and forgive me for saying it this way -- that you're blaming homosexuals for an institution that's under assault from just about everyone but gays.

GALLAGHER: I'm not blaming homosexuals for anything. It's four judges in Massachusetts, not homosexuals, who brought us gay marriage.

DOBBS: OK.

GALLAGHER: And it's a bunch of Democratic legislatures in blue states who are not, as far as I know, gay. Some of them may be -- who brought us gay marriage in those states. This is a political movement to change the law. It's going to have a lot of consequences.

I do not understand how we can possibly rebuild a marriage culture with the president of the United States and the government saying the idea that marriage means a husband and wife, because you need a mother and father, is discriminatory. That's the problem. These aren't separate battles. They're related.

DOBBS: You get the last word, very quickly.

WOLFF: Look, at the end of the day, this is about treating people fairly and equally and with dignity. And getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act is going to allow us to get the federal government out of the way of states who have made that decision.

DOBBS: Thank you both.

Maggie, appreciate you being here.

Tobias, thank you.

WOLFF: Thank you.

White House Has Yet to Work Towards Repealing DOMA

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Monday filing on the Smelt case challenging the so-called Defense of Marriage Act had a strikingly different tone from the prior brief, this time clearly stating that DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed. I felt this was a welcome respite from the language in the prior brief, despite the DOJ moving forward on defending the law.

President Obama also issued an accompanying statement echoing the same sentiments, though this some see this as contrary to his well-known stance that he does not support marriage equality. But again, encouraging, because through the DOJ's brief, Obama officially stated for the first time in court he opposed DOMA.

However, today, the Washington Post reports that the White House has made no moves to repeal the law. "The Obama administration, managing a busy and complicated legislative agenda, has not begun working with Congress to repeal the act, congressional and White House sources said. Dissatisfaction in the gay and lesbian community peaked in June, when some donors canceled plans to attend a Democratic National Committee fundraiser."

Time today has a piece asking, "Why Does Obama Keep Flip-Flopping on Gay Marriage?"

. . . Obama has also said he opposes . . . a 1996 bill (signed by President Clinton) that anti-gay forces called the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Obama has said several times that he would like that law overturned.

And yet — sorry, the contradictions keep coming — once Obama was elected, and once a gay couple in California had sued to overturn DOMA, his Administration not only defended the law, but defended it in a legal argument so reactionary that it would embarrass Dick Cheney . . .

That argument — that two consenting adult men marrying isn't unlike a man marrying his niece . . .

And so this week we get a new legal brief from the Obama Administration in the California case, this one denuded of the execrable incest defense. This time . . . Obama flip-flops again — now back to his campaign position. (It must be dizzying to work in the White House these days.) Now the Administration says it opposes DOMA and wants it overturned — but that tradition dictates that it defend the law. And that is why, the White House said in a statement, "the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to [DOMA], as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged."

Legalistically speaking, the tradition argument is true, but it's yet another Obama dodge. The Administration could easily decline to defend the anti-gay law on discrimination grounds, just as the Administration of George H.W. Bush declined to defend federal laws setting a preference for awarding broadcast licenses to minority-owned businesses in 1990 . . .

Nothing except politics.

Though for many of us this piece reports old news, it is a reminder that the fickle Obama administration has yet to form a real strategy, or a simple plan for that matter, on how to act on DOMA. It is also a reminder that the work is in our hands.

But it's not all bad news. Obama has repeatedly charged Congress with the task of tackling DOMA, and they have responded. It's up to us to keep pressure on our representatives to get it done.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York is forging a repeal bill that will be introduced to the House this fall. Senators Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, and Chuck Schumer, have also been reported to be working on a Senate version of a repeal. Though both bills may only be partial repeals, allowing states to still decide for themselves whether or not to perform same-sex marriages, they will be written to allow the federal government to recognize legal same-sex marriages.

ACTION: Contact each of the representatives above by clicking on each of their names and let them know that you support a DOMA repeal!

California Legislature Advances Three Resolutions on Federal Policy Affecting the LGBT Population

Good news comes from the California state capitol today, where the Assembly Judiciary Committee passed three resolutions concerning federal laws affecting LGBT people by a margin of 6-3: a resolution urging the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA (AJR 19), a resolution in support of the Uniting American Families Act (AJR 15), and a resolution calling for the FDA to repeal the U.S. Blood Donor Nondiscrimination Resolution (AJR 13),

"It is important for California, the state with the largest LGBT population, to urge the federal government to repeal discriminatory federal policies that ultimately hurt all people in the United States," said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors, whose organization co-sponsored the resolutions. "We have more potential now than ever before to make a positive impact at the federal level, and we call on Congress and the President to seize this historic opportunity."

DOMA has had a rough week, with both the Department of Justice and President Obama stating the law discriminates and calling for its repeal.

Now, California has taken a step forward in calling for the end of the law as well. The resolution calling for its end was introduced by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D - Santa Monica).

"If a state recognizes the love and commitment of one couple, the federal government must do the same," said Assemblymember Brownley upon introducing the bill. "I urge Congress and the President to take a stand on the side of liberty and treat all Americans equally."

A federal law that would positively affect LGBT couples directly if passed is the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Under current federal law, U.S. citizens and permanent residents are permitted to petition for an opposite-sex spouse to immigrate to the U.S. The UAFA would extend this basic right to committed same-sex couples, allowing U.S. citizens and legal residents to file a visa petition on behalf of a foreign national same-sex partner.

A resolution urging Congress to pass the law and for President Obama to sign it was introduced by introduced by Assemblymember Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles).

“Thousands of American families and committed same-sex couples are denied basic rights and legal protections, including the ability to petition for a partner to immigrate to the U.S.,” said Assemblymember De León. “They live in legal limbo and are torn apart by outdated immigration policies. In ensuring a true state of equality, Congress must take immediate steps to reunite and protect all families once and for all.”

AJR 13, introduced by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), calls on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to repeal its rule prohibiting healthy gay and bisexual men from donating blood. If approved by both houses of the Legislature, the resolution would put the State of California on record as supporting updated rules for blood donation, which would increase the number of viable blood donations and in turn save additional lives.

"Blood has no sexual orientation, and the FDA should have no discrimination," said Ammiano upon introducing the bill. "I hope President Obama hears our call to change this shameful and discriminatory practice immediately so we can save more lives."

All three resolutions will move to the Senate and Assembly floors for an official vote in the coming weeks.

Department of Justice Hires Attorney Matt Nosanchuk as LGBT Liaison

Towleroad reports:

UPenn law professor Tobias Wolff, who served as chair of the national LGBT policy committee for the Obama campaign, sent an email to associates last night announcing that gay attorney Matt Nosanchuk has been hired for the Justice Department as a liaison to the gay community.

Nosanchuk Wrote Wolff: "I am pleased to pass along the news that Matt Nosanchuk has been hired as Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Department of Justice. Matt served as one of the leaders of the LGBT policy group from the first days of the Obama campaign. He is a respected out gay attorney and public policy advocate whose previous positions include serving as counselor to Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and doing significant policy work on gun control. In addition to his other duties as Senior Counselor to the Assistant AG, Matt will be the front office point person on LGBT issues for the DOJ Civil Rights Division."

This is good news.

Early in office, Obama's administration decided not to have an LGBT liaison, a position past administration's used with varying success, but at least it existed. Obama passing on a liaison proved to be a mistake.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) angered the LGBT population by filing a brief back in June comparing marriage equality to incest. Many said this could have been avoided if a liaison had existed and had objected to the filing, which apparently hadn't even been reviewed by Obama or raised any red flags in the administration before the brief was filed.

Yesterday, the DOJ attempted to make slight amends by stating in its newest filing that it thought DOMA was discriminatory and called for its repeal. However, many said it wasn't enough since it was still defending the law.

Though Nosanchuk won't by an administration liaison, working for the DOJ will still hopefully prove beneficial. Several LGBT DOMA lawsuits are working their way through the federal court system, among others. The DOJ has shown that its in dire need of Nosanchuk - hopefully they can avoid anymore mistakes, mistakes that could give ammunition to LGBT opposition and can be costly to LGBT equality.