Professor Leonard examines the federal DOMA, the goals of The Respect For Marriage Act (H.R. 3567) , its effects if enacted, a political argument against it, the reasons for Rep. Barney Frank's decision not to co-sponsor it, and Frank's other civil rights priorities.
09/16/09 Alliance Defense Fund press release:
ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum said that
“[m]any of those in favor of this bill argue that the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act is not intended to force same-sex ‘marriage’ on all the states. If that is not the intent, its supporters wouldn’t be seeking to repeal the section of DOMA that makes it clear that states have a right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”You can read Professor Leonard's analysis as a rebuttal to this "Chicken Little" argument.
09/16/09 San Francisco Chronicle / Gay Marriage Watch:
A spokesman for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that she wants the law repealed but is "focused on legislative items that we can enact into law now."
09/16/09 NOM Blog:
In this "urgent alert" to supporters of the National Organization for Marriage, executive director Brian Brown identifies the proposed legislation as "a new threat to DOMA," even though it has no real prospect of enactment, and mischaracterizes Rep. Barney Frank's position on the bill. On Brown's account, "even Rep. Barney Frank thinks the DOMA repeal bill is overreaching and has refused to support it."
09/16/09 The Hill's Congress Blog / Gay Marriage Watch:
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) voted for the federal DOMA in 1996, not because he supported its discrimination against same-sex couples, but because he sought to deflect further political exploitation of homophobic fears. He explains why he erred in judgment, and announces his co-sponsorship of the bill to repeal DOMA.
09/16/09 The Hill's Congress Blog / ADF Alliance Alert:
Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) ureges "the Speaker not to bring any legislation to the floor that will repeal DOMA and instead consider my Marriage Protection Amendment so that the American people and their elected officials determine the law of the land – not activist liberal judges. "