House liberals to introduce Marriage Act repeal

[ShadowLiberal]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted anywhere that I can find it on DU.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/House_libs_to_introduce_Marriage_Act_repeal.html#comments

From the article.

House progressives are preparing a legislative assault on the 13-year-old Defense of Marriage Act, even with the White House sending mixed signals on the issue.

I'm told that liberals, led by Jerry Nadler, who represents Manhattan's West side and chairs the Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee, are working on a repeal bill that could be at the "Dear Colleague" stage within weeks. It's likely to garner dozens of co-sponsors.

But it's not clear if the move, which comes at a time when leadership's plate in cracking under the weight of other blockbuster issues, has the backing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has said she supports rolling back the controversial law.

...

If nothing else, DOMA repeal bill will put Obama on the spot.

[Jkid]

1. If that bill is repealed

...it could effectively legalize same-sex marriage in the United States, this is due to the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. And DOMA's mere existance is practically unconstitutional.

[babylonsister]

2. I saw it, but because politico was the 'only' source for 10 hours,

I decided this could be a set-up. I don't trust them. At all.

[FreeState]

3. It's only a partial repeal that does not cover domestic partners or civil unions

It's shit. Seriously - repeal the whole thing. I want full equality not 50%


http://unitethefight.blogspot.com/2009/09/defense-of-marriage-act-repeal-bill-to.html

At the time he announced his intention to work on repealing the 1996 DOMA, Nadler told the Bay Area Reporter that the repeal would only extend to marriage and not civil unions and domestic partnerships, meaning that only those legally married will receive federal benefits.

Also, the bill looks to only repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which restricts the government from recognizing any marriages other than heterosexual. Section 2 will most likely remain, which allows states to decide whether or not to legalize marriage equality within its borders. (Correction: Section numbers were reversed earlier. Repeal would pertain to Section 3 of DOMA, restricting federal recognition.)

Nadler confirmed there would be a "certainty provision." This would ensure that any same-sex couple who moved from a state that recognizes their marriage to one that does not that the federal government would still extend federal benefits to that marriage.

With the Obama Administration constantly using double-speak when approaching DOMA, it will be interesting to see if the president will live up to his promises to support a congressional repeal of DOMA.

This time, Obama will not be able to eloquently talk his way out of this situation - he'll either support it or he won't. With so much riding on his presidency right now - health care reform, two wars to end, the economy - he needs as much political equity that he can get his hands on. I want to believe that he's a man of his word. We'll find out.

[plantwomyn]

4. If we want 100% equality

shouldn't we have to get married? I think it sucks that those who have spent hard earned money for civil unions and to file for domestice partnership should have to go through the motions again and get married. The legal fees alone suck, beleive me I know. But I think that marriage is a seperate legal contract. I would go for a simple document that each couple signs confirming that they want their DP or CU to be a legal marriage. There may be some that don't want marriage. If not fine. But we can't have it both ways.
I want DOMA gone. I agree with you that the whole thing should go. I disagree that Marriage should cover DP's or CU's. Once we have a choice some may still choose Domestic Partnership or Civil Unions. I just don't think we want to give up or force one kind of relationship and contract, for another.