You are here: Home » Hot Topics » Activism » Civil Rights Groups Pull Together – Urging Congress to Pass DOMA Repeal ACT

Civil Rights Groups Pull Together – Urging Congress to Pass DOMA Repeal ACT

 By Melanie Nathan, 2-17-10.  I have written many times  about  Congressman Jerrold Nadler, including in my first annual Heroes and Zeros.  Rep Nadler from New York,  is one of the greatest champions of LGBT rights that I have seen.      He attaches no politics to his sensibility and consciousness and was the courageous member who sponsored and introduced House Bill,  Respect for Marriage Act of 2009, which seeks to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA.)  (Of course also UAFA)

Today a well coordinated letter by civil rights organizations (See signatures at end of the letter below) including LAMBDA Legal,  NCLR, EQCA and HRC.  I asked the question last year:  Surely this is the very piece of legislation that we all should drop everything for.  Once  DOMA is DEAD – the rest of our movement will fall into place.

However at the time it was introduced the organizations and politicians, did not take this piece of legislation seriously enough.  Rep Barney Frank’s influence pervasive in his assertions that RFA ought not even be entertained until such time as DADT and ENDA pass.  I reported this in my earlier articles and Rep Frank’s discontent with the introduction of RFA spared no boundary at the time.

But now that we have been subjected to the health care reform debacle and the pending mess anticipated for immigration reform, where in all likelihood the LGBT victims on inequality will not be included, how can other progressive and democrats ignore this plea  below?

Once DOMA is repealed, the rest of what we need, I have no doubt, will flow organically.  This has been and remains the one critical piece of legislation introduced on our behalf.  Perhaps the organizations have finally woken up to realize the common battle and will band together to strategize for the big one ahead of the piecemeal.

Conspicuously absent from the list is Immigration Equality; when DOMA is gone, the LGBT spouses will qualify under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and other than some remedial work for those aggrieved by the lack of rights to date, there may well be no need for UAFA.   All standards of proof will be the same for same sex spouses as it would be for different gender   spouses; we would not have to work out Senator Feinstein’s concern with the question of the missing contractual nexus.   Even if one’s State outlawed marriage, one could still qualify for the Federal right to Sponsor a spouse, regardless of where the marriage took place.    

It made no sense to me that Nadler’s legislation was not picked up in a more vigorous fashion; that said I have the greatest admiration for our organizations who are able to regroup, re-plan, work together and move from failed strategies. 

I support this legislation above any other, and think the letter below does a magnificent job of outlining why it is imperative to pass it.   Contact your member of Congress and tell them to co-sponsor or support it. Call Barney Franks office and ask if he thinks that we should still wait for DADT and ENDA before entertaining this legislation.  Come back and comment:

 February 17, 2010

 Dear Member of Congress,

 On behalf of the below-named civil rights organizations, we urge you to become a cosponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009.  The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which singles out lawfully married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, thereby denying them and them alone among married couples more than 1100 federal protections and responsibilities that would otherwise apply to them once legally married.

 Until DOMA was enacted in 1996, federal law deferred to states in determining who could marry and be considered married, and the principle of comity and constitutional guarantee of full faith and credit governed states’ obligations to honor marriages validly celebrated elsewhere. DOMA was an unprecedented departure from these long-established rules.  Not only does DOMA purport to allow states to refuse to recognize valid civil marriages of same-sex couples (§ 2), it carves all same-sex couples, even those who have taken on the serious legal responsibilities of civil marriage and are recognized as married under state law, out of all federal statutes, regulations, and rulings applicable to all other married people (§ 3).

 As a result, legally married same-sex spouses cannot: 

• File their taxes jointly
• Receive spousal, mother’s and father’s, or surviving spouse benefits under Social Security even though they pay into Social Security throughout their careers
• Take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse
• Receive employer-provided family health benefits without paying an additional tax that different-sex spouses do not pay
• Receive the same family health and retirement/pension benefits as fellow married employees
• Be protected by the safe harbor provisions in bankruptcy law, Medicaid rules and other federal statutes that secure some resources and the family home when debts of one spouse threaten to leave both financially responsible spouses destitute. 

Supporters of DOMA argued that it was necessary to promote family structures that are best for children, but since then, every credible medical, social science and child welfare organization has concluded that same-sex couples are equal parents.[1]  In fact, the federal government recently stated, in a federal court brief, that “the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality.”[2]

 When DOMA was enacted, its harms were not yet fully appreciated because same-sex couples were not able to marry in any U.S. state. Since then, eight states and the District of Columbia have recognized equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, and thousands of couples have married.[3] Because of DOMA, the federal government does not honor their legal commitment and the needs of their families, even though these couples have assumed the obligations of civil marriage under state law and contribute as citizens and taxpayers.  DOMA undermines the very purposes of programs like Social Security and the Family and Medical Leave Act by making it more difficult for families to provide mutual support.  

The Respect for Marriage Act repeals DOMA in its entirety, and ensures that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples certainty that regardless of where they travel or move, they will not become strangers under federal law if a state refuses to recognize them as married for purposes of that state’s law. 

The Respect for Marriage Act does not obligate any person, religious organization, locality, or state to celebrate or license a marriage between two persons of the same sex.  The First Amendment protects the right of churches and religious bodies to determine the qualifications for religious marriage, and the Respect for Marriage Act cannot and will not upset that centuries-old protection. 

The time to repeal DOMA is long overdue. We urge you to join us in supporting this important legislation by becoming a cosponsor. 

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union

Equality Federation

Freedom to Marry

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders

Human Rights Campaign

Lambda Legal

National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund

Equality Alabama
Equality California (EQCA)
Love Makes a Family (Connecticut)
Equality Florida
Georgia Equality
MEGA Family Project (Georgia)
Equality Illinois
Equality Iowa
One Iowa
Forum for Equality (Louisiana)
Kentucky Fairness Alliance
EqualityMaine
Equality Maryland
Triangle Foundation (Michigan)
PROMO (Missouri)
Garden State Equality (New Jersey)
New Jersey Lesbian & Gay Coalition
Empire State Pride Agenda (New York)
New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy (NYAGRA)
TransOhio
The Equality Network (Oklahoma)
Basic Rights Oregon
Equality Pennsylvania
South Carolina Equality Coalition
Tennessee Equality Project
Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition
Equality Texas
Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force

---

[1] Major organizations publishing policy statements on the subject include: American Academy of Pediatrics, http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339 (February 2002 policy statement); American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html (July 2004 policy statement); American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/gay_lesbiantransgender_and_bisexual_parents_policy_statement (June 1999 policy statement); American Medical Association, http://www.amaassn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisorycommittee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.shtml (AMA Policy Regarding Sexual Orientation); Child Welfare League of America, http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm (Position Statement on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults).[2] Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss at 6-7, Smelt v. United States, No. SACV09-00286 DOC (MLGx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2009).[3] Same-sex couples may marry in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont.  Legislatures in Maine (pending November 2009 ballot measure) and New Hampshire (effective 1/1/2010) have voted in favor of marriage for same sex couples. California recognizes marriages of same-sex couples performed in California before the passage of Proposition 8.  New York and the District of Columbia recognize marriages of same-sex couples celebrated in other states, but do not presently grant civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

By Melanie Nathan – nathan@privatecourts.com
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com
Picture: Melanie Nathan and Rep Jerrold Nadler
at Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing for UAFA

Jerold Nadler Speaks out about LGBT Legislation Complications: http://lezgetreal.com/?p=21568 

Jerrold Nadler v. Barney Frank = LGBT UNITY?  

http://lezgetreal.com/?p=21568