'Respect For Marriage Act' introduced. It's good news.

[SirNitram]

Link

The Respect for Marriage Act, which, if passed, would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law in 1996, was introduced in the House today.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) are the lead co-sponsors of the measure along with Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY).

The bill would also provide same-sex couples with federal benefits and protections from a valid marriage from a state where same-sex marriages are legal if the couple moves or travels to another state, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

“DOMA does real harm by denying thousands of lawfully-married same-sex couples the federal rights and benefits that only flow through marriage. Many of these include the protections couples turn to in times of need, like Social Security survivors’ benefits, medical leave to care for an ailing spouse and equal treatment under U.S. immigration laws. Today’s introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA is a welcome step, and as more states recognize the commitment of loving same-sex couples and their families, it's time for this law to go into the history books where it belongs," said HRC President Joe Solmonese in a statement.

“We thank Reps. Nadler, Baldwin, Polis, Lewis and Velazquez for introducing this bill to dismantle one of the most discriminatory and far-reaching laws to emerge against our community: the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act'," said National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey in a statement.

Expect huge conservative freakouts when this gets scheduled.

[SAMAS]

Eh, fuck them. Seriously.

If you still haven't figured out that maybe, just maybe you shouldn't treat people like second-class citizens for being born, maybe it's time you took a refresher course in Human Decency 101.

[General Zod]

This is definitely good news, but what are the chances of this bill passing? I noticed no Republicans are co-sponsoring it (not a surprise).

[The Spartan]

Honestly? Probably just this side of none.

[Serafina]

Eh, fuck them. Seriously.

If you still haven't figured out that maybe, just maybe you shouldn't treat people like second-class citizens for being born, maybe it's time you took a refresher course in Human Decency 101.

But we do not treat them like second class citizens - they can marry a woman (or man for lesbians) just like everyone else!

SARCASM off.

Seriously, these people have not real concept of "equality".
At most, "equality" means "exactly the same effort for everyone" - which does not work if people ARE different.
To take a clear example:
Why should we construct a building just for a small set of people? They have the same rights as everyone else.

This way, you can justify refusal of wheelchair-friendly buildings.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Why does everything have to have a catchy name? Can't it just be called the Bill to Repeal DOMA or something. Is there something terribly wrong with giving bills a name purely descriptive of thier content?

[Terralthra]

It's all part of the theatre of constant-election politics. If Republicans come out too strongly against this, the Democrat in their district or state can start saying (truthfully!) that the Republican in question fought against the Respect for Marriage Act, which will have some sway with idiots, even if it doesn't mean what they think it means.

[Yona]

The is only one reason we need a law like this in the first place. Because if we don't have one, some asshole will try to pass one prohibiting whatever his or her personal bigotry or phobia happens to be.

What's pathetic is that we even need this type of legislation to tell us how to behave toward each other.

[Duckie]

The is only one reason we need a law like this in the first place. Because if we don't have one, some asshole will try to pass one prohibiting whatever his or her personal bigotry or phobia happens to be.

What's pathetic is that we even need this type of legislation to tell us how to behave toward each other.

Uh, you're confused. The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of gay marriage. It doesn't make it illegal to discriminate against gays (note that locations can still refuse to marry gays, but if this were passed it would require them to recognize out of state marriages as valid).

This legislation is merely a repeal of a law, not mandating something, so it doesn't tell anything or prevent anything.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Repealing it will enable currently existing same-sex marriages to enjoy the thousands of federal benefits that come with marriage. It will make state-by-state discrimination much more difficult to enforce.

On a somewhat slight tangent, the anti-marriage folks at Yes On 8... errr, I mean Yes On 1 released their ad today all over Maine.



The average TV viewer will see this ad 20 times before the election.

[A-Wing_Slash]

Intrestingly, the messages these ads are sending out boil down simply to "if there's gay marriage, then there'll be gay marriage!" i.e. if theres gay marriage, then they'll tell schoolkids that a man can marry a man (which he would be able to , legally, if there was gay marriage), or if there's gay marriage, those who don't believe in gay marriage wouldn't be able to believe that anymore (because, if there was gay marriage, it wouldn't be true in their jurisdiction). They aren't even trying to make serious arguments anymore.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Intrestingly, the messages these ads are sending out boil down simply to "if there's gay marriage, then there'll be gay marriage!" i.e. if theres gay marriage, then they'll tell schoolkids that a man can marry a man (which he would be able to , legally, if there was gay marriage), or if there's gay marriage, those who don't believe in gay marriage wouldn't be able to believe that anymore (because, if there was gay marriage, it wouldn't be true in their jurisdiction). They aren't even trying to make serious arguments anymore.

It doesn't matter if those arguments aren't serious or if they're fresh. The lawsuit they bring up has absolutely nothing to do with marriage laws and they portray gay people as "special interests". What really matters is this: THEY WORK. They worked in California and they're banking on it working in Maine. If a viewer sees an ad once, they will not remember it. If they see it 5 times, they may remember it. If they see it 10 times, they are likely to remember it. YesOn1 have already reserved roughly 700,000 dollars worth of TV air time, which will amount to the average TV user seeing it 20 times! If it is repetitive enough, people WILL buy it.

If you're in Maine, you can help volunteer. http://mainefreedomtomarry.com/
Their overall strategy is no secret; there will be 500,000 voters voting this year. They need 250,000 voters on their side and they're doing this by engaging people in an one-on-one conversation. Of course, they will also need the funds to compete with the enormous ad buy from the other side. Please donate if you can.

[Duckie]

I'm personally amazed they found the world's only rhotic Bostonian to deliver that speech. It could have been worse- had he actually sounded like he came from the place people would buy it more. I wish I were back home- I have no money, but I could give copious time if I weren't stuck in some godforsaken hellhole.

With the bloody catholic church dumping thousands of dollars a pot and asking for double tithing it looks like it's going to be a pretty shitty thanksgiving for Mainers.

[Yona]

The is only one reason we need a law like this in the first place. Because if we don't have one, some asshole will try to pass one prohibiting whatever his or her personal bigotry or phobia happens to be.

What's pathetic is that we even need this type of legislation to tell us how to behave toward each other.

Uh, you're confused. The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of gay marriage. It doesn't make it illegal to discriminate against gays (note that locations can still refuse to marry gays, but if this were passed it would require them to recognize out of state marriages as valid).

This legislation is merely a repeal of a law, not mandating something, so it doesn't tell anything or prevent anything.

Not confused. I know what this bill does. The reason for my comment was that I felt that the original "Defense of Marriage" was an unneeded law in the first place. The repeal of it is great, but should not have been needed, as I felt the first law should never have been passed.

The continued proposal and passing of those types of "laws" to assuage the phobias, prejudice and bigotry of small minded people is what is sad. I keep hoping that somehow we as a society are learning and will eventually be better than this.

That is why I said we shouldn't need to pass laws for this, we should know better. I guess we are not there yet.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Today, the No On 1 ad released their counter-ad:



The message discipline in this ad is good. The ad calls out the lies while mostly sticking to the main message. It also portrays the anti-marriage side as outsiders and liars (which they are). What to expect next: the infamous child ad.