Edwards' Debate DOMA answer

This was posted on another blog:

http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_lawandpolitics_archive.html#107483646341675073

Edwards is getting criticized for his alleged misrepresentation of DOMA. But, actually, he was right. The Defense of Marriage Act has a second provision that defines "marriage" for purposes of federal law. He said, "But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. "

§ 7. Definition of "marriage" and "spouse" <1 U.S.C. Sect. 7>

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
____________

As this study shows, the definition implicates a number of tax and retirement provisions, and disqualifies partners for federal benefits under these provisions. So, even if 100% of the electorate favors gay marriage (and my position is federalist - leave it to states), the state's decision to recognize gay marriage (and all the real-world benefits that would accrue) would be denied by DOMA's refusal to recognize it (in that it doesn't honor that decision with a full reward of benefits).

The federal government has no business in regulating gay marriage.

I did not realize this onerous provision was written into law in DOMA. It makes me very proud that John Kerry had the courage to vote against DOMA--in a year in which he was up for re-election, 1996.

To me, it is a matter of civil and human rights, and John Kerry got it right. Denying federal benefits to people who have a committed, lifelong relationship, is wrong and is diametrical to the principles upon which this great country was founded.

The GLBT community needs a legal framework in which to pursue "life, liberty and happiness"--like the rest of us--indeed, they are us.

Call this legal relationship with all its rights and responsibilities, a "civil union"--rather than the obviously divisive "gay marriage." Pushing "gay marriage" has proven to be counterproductive to the cause for which the GLBT community is working so diligiently--and rightly, in my opinion.

They have one. We all do. It's called the United States Constitution.

to same sex couples. It's unconstitutional discrimination to set up barriers preventing same sex couples from the LEGAL RIGHTS and BENEFITS same sex couples enjoy.

civil unions. This would be within the realm of the possible--"gay marriage" would not.

...law because it allowed states NOT to have to give full faith and credit to other state's same-sex marriages.

Edwards, in addition to commenting on the federal limitations imposed, was saying it's NOT a state's rights law because it DENIES states the ability to RECOGNIZE same-sex marriages if they WANTED TO.

Incidentally, are people here familiar with the rumor in DC that Hume's son had an affair with former right wing congressman Bill Paxson, and committed suicide because of it? It made it strange to see Hume try to spin this in way that helps Republicans perpetuate the sort of society which his son might have killed himself over.