Finally, Respect for Marriage – DOMA Repeal Introduced!

At a press event on Tuesday, New York Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law that bans the US federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and granting federal benefits.

The bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009, aims to repeal all sections of DOMA, as Rep. Nadler spelled out in his press release:

“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.”

Nadler then went on to clarify that although the Respect for Marriage Act will mean that gay marriages will be recognized at a federal level, all states that have enacted so-called “mini DOMAs” or gay marriage bans, will not be forced to recognize gay marriages. In fact, the Respect for Marriage Act will not compel any state to recognize gay marriage at all:

“The Respect for 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.”

To read Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s full press release on the Respect for Marriage Act, please click here.

Other openly gay legislators and co-sponsors to the bill also spoke at the event, including Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).

Wisconsin legislator Baldwin also released a statement on the Respect for Marriage Act, saying:

“The Defense of Marriage Act clearly interferes with the rights of states to define and regulate marriage as they see fit. DOMA was wrong-headed when Congress passed it in 1996 and it is wrong today. This type of unfairness has no place in American society and I am very pleased we are introducing legislation to repeal this backward law…

“I am proud to be among the 91 Members of Congress who are original cosponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act.”

But one key gay legislator was missing.

Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass), largely considered the most eminent of gay politicians in Congress, has declined to give his backing to the bill just yet, citing that passage of the Respect for Marriage Act was unlikely in the near future.

Rather, he considers that the political power and momentum the Democrats have in Congress could be better spent:

“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.”

Talking to the Washington Blade, Frank also outlined why he thought the Respect for Marriage Act might get held up in Congress:

“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… 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 has very shrewdly pointed out that, no matter how it is spun, there will inevitably be some conflict between a state’s definition of marriage and a federal definition, at least in the eyes of some legislators.

Under the certainty provision outlined in the bill, if you are married in a state that allows gay marriage, those federal marriage rights go with you no matter where you live. There is a subtle distinction between forcing a state to recognize gay marriages and having a state honor the federal stance on gay marriage whilst retaining its own definition, which is what the Respect for Marriage Act calls for, and this is the portion of the bill that will likely meet the most resistance.

If you would like to find out precisely what the Respect for Marriage Act will and wont do, please click here for a HRC Q&A.

A companion bill to the Respect for Marriage Act has yet to be introduced into the Senate, but activists are lobbying Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis) for a DOMA repeal.

As of yet, Jerrold Nadler, who is also chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, has yet to announce when the subcommittee will schedule a hearing for the Act, but DOMA does fall under the House Judiciary Subcommittee’s jurisdiction and therefore the bill will, at some point, pass through their hands.

Take Action:
Heard enough? Have you decided that you want the Respect for Marriage Act passed so that gay marriages can be given the same rights (not more, not less) as other marriages under federal law including hospital visitation rights and Social Security benefits?

Sign this Care2 petition to show your support for the Respect for Marriage Act.

Or do you, like Rep. Barney Frank, think that the Respect for Marriage Act is too over reaching and that it would be better to focus on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Uniting American Families Act? Have your say below.

Finally, here’s fellow Care2 blogger Ann Pietrangelo talking about what gay marriage means to her as a straight, married woman:

R-E-S-P-E-C-T My Marriage

Photo Courtesy of Google Image Public Domain Search.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

New G.

10:54PM PST on Jan 24, 2012

Thank you.

send a green star

5:56PM PDT on Sep 21, 2009

"God said Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Eve and Alice"

How do you know what God says, Carol? Does God speak to you? If you're hearing little voices in your ear, you need professional help ASAP.

"I don't hate Gay people,I just think their Lifestyle is Sad. Why should American taxpayers have to Work to keep the Non working freeloader Class up."

Are you implying gay people are unemployed, lazy freeloaders? All the gay people I know work for a living, and hard at that.

Carol E.

1:44AM PDT on Sep 20, 2009

Even tho I'm Proud to be called an American I'm even prouder to be a Christian. God said Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Eve and Alice. I do resent the fact that people who are too Lazy to work expect the people who do work to keep them up , whether their Gay or straight. Isn't after all what GOD thinks that matters here? I don't hate Gay people,I just think their Lifestyle is Sad. Why should American taxpayers have to Work to keep the Non working freeloader Class up. GOD said if You don't Work don't eat. If our Country was doing it GOD'S way We wouldn't be this far in debt in the First place! GOD say's Owe No Man. If people would work to buy their own insurance for themselves and their Families We would have better coverage! I don't hate Gay People ,or Black People or any Nationality, but I do hate what Free Loaders have done and are still doing to this Country.

Sarah D.

9:49PM PDT on Sep 17, 2009

This should have been done years ago.

Past Member .

3:29PM PDT on Sep 17, 2009

Christopher, yours is another good question. The government thinks just because someone is "married" with a piece of paper it makes them a better citizen or one worth being categorized differently? ... Or because a parent has a piece of a paper that says they are "custodial" it makes them a better parent than the non-custodial parent?

Christopher F.

3:16PM PDT on Sep 17, 2009

HM B; I could answer that question if I understood why the government treats people as lesser persons for the oh so heinous crime of being a non-custodial parent, placing all responsibility on them, yet protecting custodial parents from any responsibility at all.

If anyone could justify that, then I will be answer your query.

Paul D.

3:12PM PDT on Sep 17, 2009

DOMA is discriminatory and violates the 1st and 14th amendment to the Constitution.
Any rights that are denied to even the least of us in our society diminishes us all. I pity anyone who doesn't understand that.
That there are any who would call themselves American who fail to understand that diminishes us all.
~;^}>

3:06PM PDT on Sep 17, 2009

Is there anyone else out there, besides myself, who thinks that the government should not bother defining or formally recognizing marriage at all?

There are all sorts of groups of people in this country, including but not limited to: unmarried people living together, pluralistic "marriage", swingers, and plenty of people just having multiple partners and children by many different people. When the government defines marriage of any sort, it ignores all the living arrangements "non-marrieds" have and it favors "marrieds" - or sometimes penalizes them - like making them inherit the spouses debt. Does anyone have any thoughts at all on why the government should be defining and then treating its citizens differently based on whether we are married or not?

Grenna F.

2:53PM PDT on Sep 17, 2009

Jerry, I find your post very interesting. I think you may be the first person I have encountered whose dislike or bigotry towards the LGBT community is not fuelled by religion or a religious upbringing. I would be interested in understanding this more. If I may ask, when you have encountered members of the LGBT community in what way were they “aggressive & violent”? I have heard others claim that the LGBT community tries to “to force their way on others”, how was this done? I don’t understand how trying to obtain the same rights as everyone else can be equated with trying “to force their way on others”. I have never experienced people from the gay community who have tried to convert others into being gay, lesbian or other. In my experience they know that people are either born gay or straight and that there is no changing that. I hope my questions don’t offend, I truly do just wish to understand your point of view and understand how you arrived at your dislike and bigotry of a whole group of people who in my experience just want to peacefully co-exist.

Jerry V.

11:41AM PDT on Sep 17, 2009

Just to let these people know I am not homophobic, I'm just a bigot about gays & the others. I don't support them, this is from my own view of the agressive & violent nature of some of these from where I use to live. There is no religious theory or what was taught to me, just the way they behaved in a manner to force their way on others so I classify all as the same. I will support the DOMA & write my Senators to express my views.