With 91 cosponsors, the Respect for Marriage Act (is that a great name or what?) is introduced to repeal and replace DOMA
>
UPDATE: THE LATEST ON DADT (see below)
"Today, in supporting this act, I am an arch conservative. Why is that? Because when you think about it, what have the conservatives said for all time about government's role? That government's role is to stay out of people's personal lives.
"This will allow people privacy and the right to make decisions that are most important to them. But most of all, it is about respect for what they decide to do with their own lives as long as they're not hurting anyone else. So what, I would ask, is a more intimate, more important, more critical decision, a more sacred decision than who we love -- and how we express that love?"
"Whether this takes a year, six months, three years, what we're accomplishing here today is getting the ball rolling."
by Ken
I know I keep making the point, but maybe I haven't made it enough: If the institution of marriage is in need of defending, there's nobody it needs defending from more than the people who pushed through the infamous Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a piece of raw sludge and loathing which had no purpose other than to satisfy the boiling inner loathing of all those hate-mongers who seek relief from their own poisoned existences by trying to enforce their misery on others.
How many more "Christian pillars" of their tight-assed slave communities have to be revealed as closet sex maniacs (if not outright sociopaths)? How many more fire-and-brimstone clergymen revealed as wife- and child-beaters, and little-boy-molesters for good measure? The American Crap Christian institution of marriage is basically a warehouse-factory for the preservation and development of raging sociopaths (usually male) and their immediate-family victims (usually female). (Male offspring of course start out as victims, but that's how the system shapes them into into full-fledged wife- and child-beating sociopaths.)
If these people had a shred of sanity or honesty, they would acknowledge that allowing same-sex couples to marry if they wish has absolutely nothing to do with the survival of marriage either as conventionally understood or as they understand it -- as a breeding ground for hatred, social maladjustment, and domestic violence. The more rigorously right-wing and fundamentalist the "defenders of marriage," the more horrific the stories of the women and children who escape from their clutches, or in vastly greater number are swallowed up by it.
The screeching tyrants of Crap Christianity go bonkers anytime anyone suggests as much as tinkering with DOMA, one of their proudest accomplishments, and at the same time a lingering source of shame for the sane people who let themselves be cowed into enacting and signing the thing (about some of whom more in a moment). This is why I find myself in need of a heckuva lot of hats for tipping to the people responsible for this news yesterday:
The Advocate's crackerjack Washington correspondent, Kerry Eleveld, has a thorough post on advocate.com on the announcement and the reaction to it, including the conspicuous absence among the bill's supporters of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank (who's not on board for various technical and practical reasons) as well as varying views on the content of the bill and its prospects. Not surprisingly, this is fine, likely indispensable reporting (what are the chances any infotainment-news reporter will bother to talk to the people Kerry did?). If you care about the nuts and bolts not to mention the ins and outs of the battle to come, read it.
Just now, however, I'm not -- for once -- in a nuts-and-bolts mood. I just want to take a brief look at the bigger picture.
"This will allow people privacy and the right to make decisions that are most important to them. But most of all, it is about respect for what they decide to do with their own lives as long as they're not hurting anyone else. So what, I would ask, is a more intimate, more important, more critical decision, a more sacred decision than who we love -- and how we express that love?"
-- IL Rep. Mike Quigley, speaking yesterday at the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act (at right is NY Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a prime mover of RMA)
"Whether this takes a year, six months, three years, what we're accomplishing here today is getting the ball rolling."
-- CO Rep. (and RMA sponsor) Jared Polis, at yesterday's press conference
by Ken
I know I keep making the point, but maybe I haven't made it enough: If the institution of marriage is in need of defending, there's nobody it needs defending from more than the people who pushed through the infamous Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a piece of raw sludge and loathing which had no purpose other than to satisfy the boiling inner loathing of all those hate-mongers who seek relief from their own poisoned existences by trying to enforce their misery on others.
How many more "Christian pillars" of their tight-assed slave communities have to be revealed as closet sex maniacs (if not outright sociopaths)? How many more fire-and-brimstone clergymen revealed as wife- and child-beaters, and little-boy-molesters for good measure? The American Crap Christian institution of marriage is basically a warehouse-factory for the preservation and development of raging sociopaths (usually male) and their immediate-family victims (usually female). (Male offspring of course start out as victims, but that's how the system shapes them into into full-fledged wife- and child-beating sociopaths.)
If these people had a shred of sanity or honesty, they would acknowledge that allowing same-sex couples to marry if they wish has absolutely nothing to do with the survival of marriage either as conventionally understood or as they understand it -- as a breeding ground for hatred, social maladjustment, and domestic violence. The more rigorously right-wing and fundamentalist the "defenders of marriage," the more horrific the stories of the women and children who escape from their clutches, or in vastly greater number are swallowed up by it.
The screeching tyrants of Crap Christianity go bonkers anytime anyone suggests as much as tinkering with DOMA, one of their proudest accomplishments, and at the same time a lingering source of shame for the sane people who let themselves be cowed into enacting and signing the thing (about some of whom more in a moment). This is why I find myself in need of a heckuva lot of hats for tipping to the people responsible for this news yesterday:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - 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. . . .
The Advocate's crackerjack Washington correspondent, Kerry Eleveld, has a thorough post on advocate.com on the announcement and the reaction to it, including the conspicuous absence among the bill's supporters of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank (who's not on board for various technical and practical reasons) as well as varying views on the content of the bill and its prospects. Not surprisingly, this is fine, likely indispensable reporting (what are the chances any infotainment-news reporter will bother to talk to the people Kerry did?). If you care about the nuts and bolts not to mention the ins and outs of the battle to come, read it.
Just now, however, I'm not -- for once -- in a nuts-and-bolts mood. I just want to take a brief look at the bigger picture.
First off, I have to say that "Respect for Marriage Act" is a brilliant name for a bill that, unlike the monstrous DOMA, really does show respect for marriage. The name might even put the loony opponents on the defensive. As a colleague pointed out, who could oppose something called the Respect for Marriage Act?
Not, for one, former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law in 1986. He sent a statement that was read at yesterday's announcement by New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, one of the prime movers of RMA:
Of course we know who'll oppose RMA. In fact, they're already on the job. I don't know what the bill's prospects are, but I think 91 cosponsors is a pretty darned good start, and I want to offer a hat tip to each.
At least one of the 91 is a story in his own right. Oregon Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer told that story yesterday in a HuffPost piece, "Proudly Changing My Position on DOMA," which began:
Barney Frank may have been correct "that there is zero chance of this bill becoming law in the near future," but Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, a leading RMA sponsor, was just as right when he said at yesterday's press conference, "Whether this takes a year, six months, three years, what we're accomplishing here today is getting the ball rolling."
UPDATE: WHAT ABOUT "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"?
Meanwhile, Kevin Naff reports for the Washington Blade that Pennsylvania Rep. Patrick Murphy has 166 cosponsors for his previously announced DADT repeal bill:
Not, for one, former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law in 1986. He sent a statement that was read at yesterday's announcement by New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, one of the prime movers of RMA:
“Throughout my life I have opposed discrimination of any kind. When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy.”
Of course we know who'll oppose RMA. In fact, they're already on the job. I don't know what the bill's prospects are, but I think 91 cosponsors is a pretty darned good start, and I want to offer a hat tip to each.
At least one of the 91 is a story in his own right. Oregon Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer told that story yesterday in a HuffPost piece, "Proudly Changing My Position on DOMA," which began:
On July 12, 1996 I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I've made other mistakes, this was different: it was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values. I've been a strong champion of civil rights and protections based on sexual orientation since I chaired the first legislative hearing on anti-discrimination legislation in 1973. Even worse, this vote was cast after careful consideration.
Having given it much thought, I was convinced that by voting for this one federal statute against the recognition of same-sex marriage, it would somehow take the steam out of the Newt Gingrich-Tom Delay Congress, which was using the homophobic right-wing agenda to mobilize their base at the expense of millions of gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual Americans. My hope was to simply move on and get to more pressing business at hand, including smaller steps for equality based on sexual orientation, like legislation against employment discrimination.
Since I was an outspoken supporter of anti-discrimination, I assumed that my calculations would be understood by my friends in the community and that we would lay this obnoxious political vendetta to rest. Wrong on all counts.
It should have been obvious to me that we would not be able to quell this assault based on sexual orientation. Far from stopping it, this vote fed the bigotry. Once Congress had put its imprimatur on DOMA, it was a logical step for the homophobes and political cynics to intensify their efforts and make permanent a ban on gay marriage in both the U.S. and state constitutions -- spawning many state initiatives and intensifying the assault.
Barney Frank may have been correct "that there is zero chance of this bill becoming law in the near future," but Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, a leading RMA sponsor, was just as right when he said at yesterday's press conference, "Whether this takes a year, six months, three years, what we're accomplishing here today is getting the ball rolling."
UPDATE: WHAT ABOUT "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"?
Meanwhile, Kevin Naff reports for the Washington Blade that Pennsylvania Rep. Patrick Murphy has 166 cosponsors for his previously announced DADT repeal bill:
Murphy expects House hearings on DADT repeal
in early 2010Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) said he expects the House to hold hearings on a bill to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in winter or spring of 2010.
Murphy, speaking to the Blade at a Wednesday event sponsored by the Raben Group, a D.C.-based public affairs firm, also said he has 166 co-sponsors lined up for the measure and commitments from another 10 lawmakers to vote for the bill but not sponsor it.
Murphy took over as lead sponsor of the repeal effort in the House after Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) resigned her seat to take the job of undersecretary for Arms Control & International Security at the State Department.
Meanwhile, on the Senate side, prospects for ending the military's gay ban appeared to take a hit following the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was expected to introduce a repeal bill in that chamber.
But earlier this summer, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) announced plans for a fall Senate hearing on the policy.
Gillibrand issued a press release in July thanking Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for agreeing to the hearings. Levin has said he supports repeal.
Murphy said he is confident that other senators will step up to champion repeal in that body.
"It looks like we have the votes in the Senate," Murphy said, adding that Levin's support is critical to passage.
The winter-spring timetable for House hearings is consistent with public comments by gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) this summer that he expects Congress to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2010.
#
Labels: DADT, DOMA, Earl Blumenauer, Fake Christians, Jerry Nadler, Patrick Murphy, Respect for Marriage Act
posted by KenInNY @ 6:00 AM
0 comments
|
Reddit
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home