Democrat Jerrold Nadler Introduces "Respect for Marriage Act to Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act"
By Logan Murphy Wednesday Sep 16, 2009 10:00am
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has introduced a bill that would repeal the reprehensible Defense of Marriage Act:
Civil Rights advocates and LGBT Americans herald new legislation to overturn one of the nation's most discriminatory laws
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), with a total of 91 original co-sponsors to date, introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives. This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples.
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. Read on...
This legislation is long overdue. Three cheers for Rep. Nadler and the other Democratic co-sponsors in the House! Pam's House Blend has a list of responses from the LGBT community. You can read them here.
Login or Register to post comments.
And I had this old dude on the bus this morning, ostensibly a Democrat, saying the censure of joe wilson was a waste of time.
That's in reference to DOMA.
class citizens in this country. It's our "mentality" that's the culprit.
in Canada for some time time now. In fact, Americans take "marriage cruises" to my city, enjoying an ocean cruise and stopping in a port of call to get married. There is absolutely no controversy over gay marriage here. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees it. I think that in Canada we have a more "live and let live" philosophy, extending to language rights, multiculturism, health care, etc. By and large the majority agree that we ARE in fact, our brother's keeper and are a richer society for it.
I got married in Canada and now it is recognized in DC where I live. However, there are religionist carpetbaggers from Maryland and New Jersey who have moved in to try and strip us of our marriage. The problem is that what this is about is heterosexist religion based supremacy, not civil rights for them. They don't believe that gays should have the same opportunities, responsibilities, and rights as heterosexuals. They want to shove us back into the closet and lock it. Their actions are fear based bigotry, nothing else. What they don't even acknowledge is that, in America, where marriage equality has triumphed, divorce rates have fallen. Seems like its going to be up to teh gayz to gentrify marriage too.
NYSE Wed. Sept 16.
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090916/capt.f6e290...
n/t
Congressman Nadler is right on this one.
Equality is something we have to strive for as it is not automatic nor in the nature of many.
Go Jerry!
I smell another Beck brain fart, and see thousands of rightwing morons in the streets protesting yet again for the government to get out of their lives by discriminating against gays!
...why all the teabaggers weren't protesting the DOMA assault on liberty in the first place.
But you can be sure they'll have a problem with this.
Funny how freedom doesn't mean "Freedom From Religion", but it does mean "Freedom From tEh Gayz"...
This is a fine example of Federal encroachment-neither of these laws should exist. Marriage is a state issue to resolve. Gee do ya think rural states must be dragged into urban states points of view?
So much for choices...
DOMA when it was passed, eh? Being a person of principles, I suspect you were out there condemning DOMA from day one...I'm glad you are consistent in your beliefs unlike some of those DOMA supporters who are suddenly crying states' rights
Discrimination isn't a choice it is an expression of intolerance and hate.
I am not aware of any state that doesn't have both.
And, New England has been dragging the rest of the nation along since the beginning.
do you really, honestly not understand the point he was making?
There ARE rural states, states that don't have much of a population at all, and their 'cities' are the size of the urban states' small towns.
For example, Montana has 960K residents, in the entire state.
New York City, on the other hand, has over 8.3 million residents.
Erie county (Buffalo, New York), with 950K people, has only ten thousand less residents than the entire state of Montana.
Munroe County, NY, has 735K residents.
The point is, why do the residents of Montana get the same voice, at under one million people, as New York, who has 20 times the population?
Where two counties alone have approximately the same number of citizens?
Where one city equals ten Montanas all by itself?
What rwconspirator wrote was:
Gee do ya think rural states must be dragged into urban states points of view?
The opposite of what your comment says.
Gee, so I guess other issues should be decided by the states, such as:
1) whether or not people of different races can marry;
2) whether public schools can be segregated;
3) whether states are free to institute poll taxes and literacy requirements
Don't forget slavery!
You're right!
And secession!
Oh, and I think "rural states" have had way too much power for too long, re: the Senate.
Think not? Look at the crap that is being pushed in the health care dabate by Max Baucus and Kent Conrad.
Gee, do ya think urban states must be held hostage by rural states when most Americans want the public option?
states' rights should rightfully play second fiddle.
left up to States to decide. How do you think the civil war was started?
Get religion out of politics and the whole issue of gay marriage ceases to be an issue at all.
The government should only recognize civil unions where one does not have to declare what sex they are. Leave marriage up to religious institutitions to decide if they want to recognize "marriage" or not.
Civil Rights should never be allowed to be put on general ballots in states. Supporters saying the states should decide are inviting another civil war. So much for creating a more perfect union!
would try to pass the Defense of Marriage through the Abolition of Divorce Act.
I would love to watch the wingnut heads implode into their own vacuums.
I can't remember where I read, might have been Huffo, but this guy is getting signatures to put on the California ballot to make Divorce in California illegal. It's mocking Prop 8 and their supporters. Right now it's being reviewed by California Board.
If you get a divorce, the person found at fault would have to re-pay all those sweet tax breaks they got while married...
except instead of just having no traction, it won't even make the news.
Login or Register to post comments.