Posted on 11/06/2011 5:50:32 AM PST by IbJensen
(CNSNews.com) – The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed debate and voting on legislation today that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but Chairman Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.), who voted for DOMA’s passage in 1996, said the law “must now be repealed,” adding that the federal government must “recognize that all married couples deserve legal protections.”
At a mark-up hearing on legislation to repeal DOMA, Sen. Leahy said, “When I voted for DOMA in 1996, I believed that it was a way to allow states to maintain their independence and define marriage as each state saw fit.”
But “much has happened” since DOMA became law, he said, including his own and five other states legalizing same-sex “marriage,” and that “it must now be repealed.”
“The time has come for the federal government to recognize that all married couples deserve legal protections,” Leahy said. “I look forward to the repeal of DOMA.”
The Defense of Marriage Act basically says that for any federal purpose, marriage is defiend as being between one man and one woman, and no state can be forced to accept a same-sex “marriage” from another state.
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored Senate bill 598, the Respect for Marriage Act, said DOMA was “clearly discriminatory” and should be repealed. feinstein
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) sponsored the legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which she said on Nov. 3, 2011 was "clearly discriminatory."
“DOMA is a pernicious denial to one class of legally married couples of more than 1,100 federal rights and benefits that are provided to all other members of that class -- legally married couples,” Feinstein said. “I believe this is a clear violation of equal protection.”
Feinstein’s legislation would recognize as married those couples that are legally married under state law, including homosexuals who “marry.”
This would make same-sex couples eligible for the federal benefits enjoyed by married couples, including spousal Social Security and death tax benefits.
Leahy announced that debate and a vote on repealing DOMA would take place next week.
The Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 specifically would repeal section 1738C, Title 28, USC and amend it to read as follows: Sec. 7. Marriage
(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
(b) In this section, the term `State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.'.
Wake up America, You have been betrayed by the people you elected.The Constitutional Republic IS all but dead. We have a shamble of demoocracy left if any.
If you want to become part of the solution, to save what is left and rebuild for your childrens future join the True Patriots at the Washington Monument at 0600hrs 11-11-11 and be prepared to help get the usurper out of the White House and begin restoring the Constitutional Republic. Join those that took an oath and took it serious , to uphold the Constitution and defend the nation against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC!
So tell us “Leaky” Leahy, just what do all marriages need protection from? You?
by his own admission he has No clue as to why he does things —except he seems a I will go along just to get along kind of guy. There is No moral compass with him. Oh I do agree all married couples deserve the protection of law— We DISAGREE in what constitutes “marriage” .I cannot accept as “marriage” any system other than one man and one woman in the Holy estate of matrimony. Anything else is as Dr.Kelly Hollowell put it for WND years ago “It’s dilution stupid!” What is called marriage in Mass. or other States where the Reprobates control the court and the Legislature changes the nature and definition of Marriage -polluted water does not make it better just because somebody added crap to it.
This guy is strictly a materialist with NO SOUL. Ignore him.
A recent poll has 40% of people thinking that marriage comes from man and the state. In other words, to 40% of the people, marriage is simply how the majority defines it at any one time, or however judges or pols define the institution. Statists like like Leahy have to really dig that.
Freegards
Hey Leahy, your support for the “Respect for marriage act” would mean that you want the government to MANDATE that children be purposely denied either a mother or a father. Where’s the “Respect for Children Act”??
And we were conditioned to believe and to fear the enemy at the gate, looks like we’ve been had.
If this law passes, then we would have 50 state homosexual marriage.
Reason being, the wording reads that a person is considered married if the marriage is legal in the state in which it is entered into, not the state of residence of the people involved. So that means that marriage tourism of homosexuals to the handful of states in which it is legal will mean they are legally married for federal purposes, no matter where these people live.
And it would therefore set up a whole new set of lawsuits for the homosexual lobby to force the issue through the federal courts.
Eventually, the gay activists would like to see a “Brown vs. Board of Education” type of ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on homosexual marriage. And this proposed law would be another big step in that direction.
Rather that “respect for marriage”, this law will simply make it impossible for states to define marriage at all. Instead, marriage will be defined only as judges see fit to define it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.