Democrats push repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-push-repeal-defense-marriage-act-080125268.html

By LARRY MARGASAK - Associated Press | AP – 1 hr 5 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats who back gay marriage have decided now is the time to repeal a federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The Democrats may satisfy their gay marriage supporters, but the bill won't get very far.

The repeal could be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, but the next stop — the full Senate — could be a long way off. The bill's chief sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., says she doesn't have the votes for Senate passage, and the bill would have no chance in a House controlled by Republican conservatives.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., defended the timing of the panel's likely vote on the Defense of Marriage Act. "It is never the wrong time to right an injustice," he said.

Feinstein's bill has 31 Senate sponsors, all Democrats. Most Republicans fiercely oppose the repeal.

"Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been the foundation of our society for 6,000 years," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary panel. "The Defense of Marriage Act protects this sacred institution, which I believe in, and attempts to dismantle this law are likely to be met with a great deal of resistance."

Lacking enough votes in the House or Senate, Grassley said the Democratic effort in the Judiciary Committee "makes it no more than a cynical political gesture to the Democrats' base."

It is likely that the issue will be debated right up to the 2012 elections, while challenges to the law take place in several federal appeals courts. Conservatives vowed to make it a front-burner issue after President Barack Obama decided in February his administration no longer would defend the law.

Much has changed since President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. The District of Columbia and six states now recognize gay marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire.

The federal law has a huge negative economic impact on all gay couples through the denial of federal government benefits.

The couples cannot file joint federal income tax returns and take deductions available in traditional marriages. There are no spousal Social Security benefits. They can't take advantage of the Family and Medical Leave law that protects one's job and health insurance during emergency absences. Surviving gay spouses have no protection from estate taxes.

Leahy voted for the law in 1996 but has since changed his mind.

"I voted for DOMA as a way to allow states to maintain their independence and define marriage as each state saw fit," Leahy said.

Leahy said he now believes the law undermines protections in the states that allow gay marriage. He said the law "created a tier of second-class families who are not treated equally under the law."

The repeal would not obligate any person, state or locality to perform same-sex marriages.

Feinstein, who voted against the current law, said, "It has been firmly established over decades that marriage is a legal preserve of the states.

"DOMA was wrong when it was passed and should be repealed. And this bill will do that. It will strike DOMA from federal law and restore the role of states in determining who may marry in this country. I believe the time has come."

Obama said recently he is "still working" on his views of gay marriage. He supports civil unions but has thus far not backed same-sex marriage.

Numerous recent polls suggest a slight majority of Americans favor giving same-sex couples the right to marry.

Thirty-seven states currently have statutory Defense of Marriage acts. Three of those states have laws that predate the federal act.

[kytwell 179]

Not that I disagree with it, but this isn't going to get anyone back to work. And the economy is what the senate, the president and the congress should be working on around the clock.

[Danno 1,228]

Not only is this not going to pass but next year even more states are going to reject the movement to make marriage anything 2 or more people decide it is by changing their state constitution.

and I will need to update this.

[Ban Hammer 13,558]

"Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been the foundation of our society for 6,000 years," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary panel

i had no idea the usa was so old!

[^_^ 5,021]

i had no idea the usa was so old!

You realize civilization predates the united states, don't you?

Edited November 10, 2011 by \

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The "protect states rights" lobby in Congress - you find them heavily on the right side of the aisle - should be all over that. But they won't be. Because states rights are only good if the states happen to do what the church preaches.

[Ban Hammer 13,558]

You realize civilization predates the united states, don't you?

he's talking about society, not civilization.

[mawilson 2,133]

he's talking about society, not civilization.

Furthermore, he's talking about "our society".

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i had no idea the usa was so old!

See, you learn something new every day.

[Danno 1,228]

The "protect states rights" lobby in Congress - you find them heavily on the right side of the aisle - should be all over that. But they won't be. Because states rights are only good if the states happen to do what the church preaches.

What happen to your love of the Interstate commerce clause?

The Fed has an role in the regulating of toilets is fine but a mobile society no?

[^_^ 5,021]

he's talking about society, not civilization.

You need to take into account that some people don't always use the right words. It's not hard figuring out what he really means here.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What happen to your love of the Interstate commerce clause?

I support the Constitution - actually took an oath to do so. Do you?

[Danno 1,228]

I support the Constitution - actually took an oath to do so. Do you?

COme on, we all support the Constitution, or at least our own understanding of it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Come on, we all support the Constitution, or at least our own understanding of it.

Then why did you ask about the interstate commerce clause? If your assumption is that we all support the Constitution, then you know the answer to the question.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,558]

You need to take into account that some people don't always use the right words. It's not hard figuring out what he really means here.

so he's related to gwb?