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.

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!

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.

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.

Congressman Nadler to Submit Legislation to Repeal DOMA

The Bay Area Reporter (BAR), in an exclusive interview with Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-New York), reports that the U.S. Representative plans on submitting legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. However, the bill would rule out anything other than marriage, consequentially only extending federal benefits to only marriages and not domestic partnerships or civil unions.

"No, it will not include domestic partnerships or civil unions. It is going to be just marriage," Nadler said.

The BAR reports:

Under DOMA's Section 3 the federal government is forbidden from recognizing LGBT couples married in the six states where same-sex marriage is legal. Section 2 of the law says those states that outlaw same-sex marriages do not have to recognize legal same-sex marriages from other states. Nadler said his bill would repeal both sections of DOMA.

"We have got to repeal DOMA and have got to make sure it accomplishes for federal purposes allowing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages," said Nadler, who led the fight to defeat a Federal Marriage Amendment that would have enshrined the same-sex marriage ban in the U.S. Constitution. "The time for dumping DOMA is long overdue."

------

Nadler said that including domestic partnerships or civil unions in his legislation "gets very complicated" because the laws governing such legally recognized relationships are "different in every state." Also, he said it would cloud the legislation's end goal, which is ensuring all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, have the right to marry.

"Historically domestic partnerships and other relationships have been an interregnum until we get to marriage, which we need to push for as soon as possible," said Nadler, adding that he could not predict what chances the legislation has of passage. "We have to see what reaction we get. It won't pass this year."

With concerns to California, only the 18,000 couples that got married before Prop 8 would get recognition. However, couples could go to states where marriage equality is legal and get married there. They could then return to California and the state would then be legally bound to recognize their marriage.

"During his prepared remarks, Nadler said he would include the 'certainty provision' in his bill in order to give same-sex couples and their families peace of mind that should they move to a state that does not allow same-sex couples to wed their marriage would still be valid," the BAR article says.

This is great news. America Blog reminded its readers the strong support that Nadler has shown for the LGBT population in the past.

When the infamous DOMA brief was released, Nadler said, "For my part, I have long objected to DOMA as unfair and unconstitutional, and I am working toward a legislative solution that will ensure security and equality for all American families. I urge my colleagues to contact me and join the effort toward equality for LGBT Americans."

In a week that for me personally has pushed my optimism to the breaking point, this gives me hope. Sure, it's far from certain that this will go anywhere, but the fact that a powerful ally is working along with us to make a difference really brightens my day.

Contact Rep. Nadler and thank him for his support.