"Respect for Marriage Act" would repeal DOMA

From The Washington Blade (OK, not an unbiased source on this, never mind):

Well! Does this have a chance of passing, in this year of grace? And if it does, will the political fallout be good or bad for the Dems and the Obama Admin? (Remember how the gay marriage boogyman seemed to turn out the RW voters in 2004.)

Surprisingly, Barney Frank doesn’t think it can pass.

It should be done, combined with the abolition of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It will cost the Democrats in some places.

I don’t say this as a semi-Republican who hopes to reap the harvest. I am active a church that is arguing for full rights for gays both in government and in our denomination (Presbyterian). I am also vocal from within the Boy Scouts of America that the interpretation that gay adults are automatically considered to be immoral.

Oh darn. I thought this was going to outlaw divorce. Really the only way to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

On the other hand, having gay marriage on the ballot here in California didn’t stop the state from going to Obama. It might not be as effective a wedge issue as it once was, even if stripping rights from queers remains a popular national passtime.

Not a chance. You have to remember that many of the newly elected Dems came from traditionally more conservative districts. Not to mention the need to have 60 votes to get thru the Senate. Sadly, not a chance.

I hope so, but I doubt it. I suspect that if it does pass, most of the conservative dems in the senate will vote against a filibuster, and then against the bill–so it’ll pass, but they can argue in their districts that they opposed it.

I think it will, however, pass in Obama’s second term. The trend is already visible–social conservatives are getting (in general) older; combine that with a few more years of gay marriage existing and growing a little, and people getting to know that cute couple down the street, seeing the world not fall apart because they can get married, and I think the dynamic will change. Give it 6-8 years, and it’ll seem weird we argued about this stuff so vehemently.

You really have to wait 6-8 years to catch up with the rest of the industrialized world?

On the other hand…I think THIS generation is going to be the GLB community’s '60’s. It’s very exciting to see how much things are changing. I mean I can remember back in the late 90’s
early 00’s reading about how in the Netherlands it was legal for lesbians and gay men to marry, and being amazed by that. We have come so far!

Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Spain, and Norway are “the rest of the industrialized world,” are they?

That will sure as hell be a surprise to Japan, China, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Russia, and Brazil, won’t it?

In fact, of the top ten nations in the world by GDP, only Spain, at number 9, is on the list of countries that allow legal same-sex marriage.

There are very valid reasons to advocate for the US to permit same-sex marriage. “Catching up with the rest of the industrialized world,” is not a valid reason; it’s a spurious and ridiculous claim.

Not only does he think it will fail, he also is not supporting it.

A big part of DOMA was not just Federal recognition, but also excluding it from the required reciprocity between states of marriage rights. If the DOMA is repealed, then people can get married in MA, move to, say, Texas, then Texas would have to recognize the marriage as well.

Obama doesn’t support same sex marriage. Why wouldn’t he veto this?

Based on what, exactly? I know you’re not going to say “the Full Faith and Credit Clause,” because that would imply an ignorance of the rule enunciated in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 306 U. S. 493 (1939).

Well in theory because he is an intelligent reasonable person who can differentiate between his personal beliefs and the good of others who do not share his beliefs.

If through some miracle this made it through the house and the senate I doubt he would veto it.
To be clear on Barney Frank not supporting the bill. He said nothing to indicate he wouldn’t vote for it. He has only stated he isn’t going to put his time or political clout behind pushing it through because his time can be better spent on other issues.

I would love to see this bill pass. Wouldn’t bet on it though.

Agreed. Too bad a vote for a Republican is a vote to further block it.

Indeed. He should have said “catch up with the rest of the civilized world.”

True. Although right now, the Dems have a cloture-proof majority in the Senate and a comfortable majority in the House. If it won’t pass, it’s hard for me to place all the blame on the evil Republicans.

Still, I grant that of the two parties, you’ll find more opponents to the bill amongst R’s than D’s, and that opposition is wrong-headed.

It’s difficult to pin down exactly what Obama thinks about gay marriage. He’s on record as saying that he personally opposes it, but he’s also on record as opposing California’s Prop. 8. I don’t know what that would mean if this bill somehow passed Congress and landed on his desk. I doubt that we’re going to find out any time soon.

I wouldn’t rule it out, but I doubt it. The Democrats aren’t going to have nearly the congressional numbers in Obama’s second term that they have now. If you think they can’t get shit done now (and they apparently can’t), just wait until 2012 and beyond. Obama is going to be crippled in his second term.

I find the difficulty in understanding this position itself difficult to understand. Consider: I think everyone should accept Jesus into their lives and become Anglican. But I’m dead set against trammelling with anyone’s beliefs by force of law.

Likewise, Barack and Michelle Obama personally hold the marriage is properly contracted between one man and one woman. But they don’t believe that how they feel should be imposed on other people by force of law.

It’s a distinction between freedom and statism. You have a right to do what you see fit, subject to its causing no harm to others. And how I might feel about the issue should not be the grounds for a law that infringes on your rights.

Not really a tricky position, IMO.