Marriage 'Respect' Measure Goes Before Lawmakers

A bill that would repeal the 1996 anti-gay federal "Defense of Marriage" Act (DOMA) was submitted to both the House and the Senate on March 16.

Sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act had announced in advance that they would re-introduce the legislation, which Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, had filed in previous legislative sessions.

"The 15-year-old DOMA singles out legally married gay and lesbian 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," a March 14 press release from the offices of Reps. Nadler, Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jared Polis (D-CO), David Cicilline (D-RI), and John Conyers (D-MI) said.

DOMA was signed in 1996 by then-president Bill Clinton. It has since been found unconstitutional in federal court. The Obama Administration has also determined that the law is unconstitutional, and has announced that it will no longer defend the law in court.

That announcement has precipitated criticism from anti-gay organizations and politicians. GOP Congressional leader John Boehner has said that the House of Representatives will defend the anti-gay law. That announcement has drawn criticism in turn, because Congressional defense of the anti-gay will entail hiring private attorneys. With nine federal suits against DOMA currently in the courts--and the prospect that more suits might yet be filed--estimates of the cost of defending the measure start at around $50 million.

Critics point out that Congress has been busy recently slashing the budgets for everything from National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to a tsunami warning system.

GLBT equality advocates praised the introduction of the legislation to both House and Senate.

"It is shocking that in 21st-century America, legally married same-sex couples are being singled out and selectively denied fundamental rights by their own federal government. This is an outrage," said Rea Carey, the executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a March 16 press release.

"The Respect for Marriage Act does just that--it respects and protects the rights of legally married couples to live free from this government-sanctioned discrimination," Rea added. "Today's introduction marks an important step toward recognizing our common humanity and ending an egregious injustice against thousands of loving, committed couples who simply want the protections, rights and responsibilities already afforded other married couples."

The Human Rights Campaign issued a March 16 press release stating that the plan by Congressional Republicans to defend DOMA does not enjoy public support.

"In the wake of new polling showing that Americans oppose the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), bills were filed in the House and Senate today to repeal DOMA and end federal discrimination against legally married same-sex couples," the release stated.

"The Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) was introduced in the House by Reps. Jerry Nadler, John Conyers, Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, Jared Polis and David Cicilline and for the first time in the Senate by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy and Kirstin Gillibrand.

"Additionally Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer are sponsors of the House bill along with over 100 co-sponsors," the release added.

"The nationwide poll, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, shows 51 percent of voters oppose DOMA while only 34 percent favor it," noted the HRC release. "Independent voters, who were instrumental in the Republican House takeover, oppose this law by a 52 percent to 34 percent margin."

"The debate over DOMA isn't about whether you favor marriage equality, it's about whether the government can pick and choose which marriages they like, and which they don't," the president of HRC, Joe Solmonese, said. "With five states and DC granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it's time the federal government stops playing favorites and instead creates an equal playing field for all families."

"DOMA prevents any of the over 1,100 federal rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage from being afforded to legally married same-sex couples," the release said. "These include Social Security survivor benefits, federal employee health benefits for spouses, protections against spouses losing their homes in cases of severe medical emergencies, the right to sponsor a foreign born partner for immigration and the ability to file joint tax returns among many others."

"In 1996, DOMA was just hypothetical discrimination because every state excluded same-sex couples from marriage," Solmonese explained. "Today we see it in much more concrete terms--as tangible, heart-wrenching, real-life discrimination."

Real Families, Real Impact

The chief sponsors of the bills echoed that observation.

"The time for dumping DOMA is long overdue, and rather than prolonging litigation in the courts, Congress should act to repeal this ugly law," said Nadler. "When Congress passed DOMA in 1996, it was not possible for a gay or lesbian couple to marry anywhere in the world. Today, tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples are married.

"Far from harming the institution of marriage, these couples have embraced this time-honored tradition and the serious legal duties of civil marriage," Nadler continued. "The Respect for Marriage Act will send this shameful law into the history books where it belongs."

"Years of experience with same-sex marriage in several states has conclusively refuted the arguments for DOMA that were never valid in the first place," said Congressman Barney Frank. "It stands now only as a symbol of bigotry and should be repealed."

"The administration's decision not to defend DOMA intensifies the urgent need to repeal this discriminatory law," Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin said. "All legally married couples should have the same federal rights, obligations, and recognition, regardless of their sexual orientation. Anything less than full equality is most likely unconstitutional, and most certainly un-American."

"Love and commitment are not owned by any one group," said Congressman Jared Polis. "Same-sex couples are only asking to be allowed to honor and protect the one they love with the blessing of their friends and family. By finally welcoming all Americans into the time-honored tradition of marriage, we all benefit.

"The Defense of Marriage Act is a war cry against an imagined foe," added Polis. "It is time to see the truth for what it is: We are all trying to live our lives with the ones we love."

"Throughout my career in public service, I have consistently fought for full equality for all people because I believe that every American deserves the same freedoms and protections under the law," said Congressman David Cicilline. "Discrimination of any kind against a person based on their sexual orientation is just wrong and it should be prohibited by law.

"Today I proudly stand in support of the Respect for Marriage Act because marriage equality is about ensuring that gay and lesbian couples across our nation are fully included in the protections, obligations, and full citizenship of civil marriage."

"Instead of defending marriage, DOMA has done the opposite in denying tens of thousands of legally married couples the responsibilities and rights of marriage under federal law," noted Congressman John Conyers. "We should all be spared the time, money, and harm of continuing to defend this law, so I invite all of my colleagues to work with us to secure equal rights for all American families."

A press release from the lawmakers stated that 108 co-sponsors joined them in bringing the measure before Congress.

"The Respect of Marriage Act adopts 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," the release said. "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."

Said the HRC's Solmonese, "When it comes to defending DOMA, House Republican leaders are wrong on the policy and wrong on the politics. It's mind boggling that Speaker Boehner would so misread the tea leaves in his urgent effort to score some cheap and temporary political points."

"A five-member House panel on [March 9] voted 3-2 along party lines to direct the House counsel to come up with a legal defense for the 1996 law," reported the Associated Press on March 10. "Boehner said the law's constitutionality should be decided by a court, not by the president. Meanwhile, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who voted against the directive, says the defense will be lengthy and expensive."

Under the provisions of DOMA, states may ignore marriages granted in other jurisdictions. Section 3 of the law defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman.

The Obama Administration effectively declared that DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause. The Obama Administration also said that court cases involving gays and lesbians should be held to a standard of review consistent with the existence of GLBTs as a legitimate minority group. Such a standard of review requires compelling evidence to justify anti-gay laws and policies, which has not been the case previously.

GLBT equality advocates see DOMA as a bulwark against full legal and social equality for gays and their families, because the law reaches into so many areas of family life. Under DOMA, immigration reforms that would give gays the same rights to sponsor a life partner from another country could be blocked. Moreover, because DOMA is a federal law the denies recognition to same-sex married couples, even those states where family parity is legal can only offer couples state-level protections: Social Security benefits for same-sex spouses, federal pensions, and tax protections are beyond the reach of non-heterosexual partners under current law.

From Family to Strangers by Crossing State Lines

DOMA also imposes a situation that has allowed a patchwork, and highly variable, legal situation to prevail. Married couples that leave any of the five states where marriage equality is legal risk having their familial rights and protections watered down, or even being rendered legal strangers, simply by crossing state lines. Similar dangers regarding parental rights also exist for families traveling with children.

Anti-gay social conservatives say that gay and lesbian families should be denied legal recognition in order to "preserve" heterosexual unions, which, they argue, would somehow be harmed if marriage equality were granted to same-sex couples. Moreover, social conservatives warn that religious individuals would find their rights of free expression and worship abrogated if gay weddings became commonplace.

"Supporters of DOMA argued in 1996 that the law is necessary to promote family structures that are best for children, but every credible medical, social science and child welfare organization has concluded that gay and lesbian couples are equal parents," the press release from the measure's sponsors observed.

"Married gay and lesbian couples pay taxes, serve their communities and raise children like other couples," added the release. "Their contributions and needs are no different from anyone else's. The Respect for Marriage Act would ensure that couples who assume the serious legal duties of marriage are treated fairly under federal law."

The plaintiffs in one of the federal suits also responded to news of the bills' filing. Married Massachusetts couple Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau issued a statement through Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), a legal organization dedicated to pursuing justice for GLBT civil rights causes.

"Marcelle and I have been happily together for 30 years and happily married for five," Gill said. Gill has been a federal worker for more than two decades, but DOMA shuts her out of health benefits for her legal wife and their two children.

"Unlike my married co-workers, I can't put Marcelle on my health, dental or vision insurance because of DOMA," said Gill, "and I can't use the Postal Service flexible spending account to help defray our family medical expenses. Our family should be treated the same as the families of our co-workers, and our children should be just as secure as theirs."

"DOMA affects real people, real families, and real children," said the couple's counsel, CLAD lawyer Mary Bonauto. "When these folks are denied family medical leave, social security spousal and survivor benefits, joint filing of federal income taxes, employee and retiree benefits and all the other federal protections normally given to married couples, they are being treated like second-class citizens and experience a direct impact on their everyday lives."

Bonauto argued the case that led to a verdict from federal judge Joseph Tauro last summer that DOMA violates the United States Constitution.

The new poll showing public support for the repeal of DOMA is consistent with other polls in recent years that indicate a growing acceptance of gays and their families. But politicians have been slow to get the message: Republicans and Democrats alike in a number of states continue to oppose family parity for same-sex couples. Lawmaker in Indiana are considering a measure that would amend the state constitution and deny gay and lesbian families not only marriage, but civil unions and domestic partnerships, as well. Anti-gay activists are pushing for a similar constitutional amendment in Iowa, where GOP political Newt Gingrich recently directed funds to help anti-gay groups, according to a March 16 Associated Press article.

Lawmakers in Maryland turned back a marriage equality bill last week without voting on it.

In other states, gay and lesbian families have won some progress recently. Illinois and Hawaii have approved civil unions, and lawmakers in Colorado are contemplating a civil unions measure.