Your thoughts on DOMA, please...

I have had many people here say to me that supporting the Defense of Marriage Act is not Anti-LGBT Rights.

Everything that I have read contradicts that.
Care to clue me in ...

Thanks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

funky...please leave, because quite frankly, you stink.

Did I miss something?

and cowards that like to dress in white bedsheets and act tough.

to an american citizen because s/he wont marry who the government tells him to?

If you support the DOMA you are anti-civil rights, anti-gay, and a pompous jerk.

If the defense of marriage is so important why not outlaw divorce instead of excluding a segment of the population from marriage? Isn't the more people who get married, the stronger the institution is?

Why are we trying to deny rights to two people who want to sign a contract if they are of legal age and not blood related?

It is the one thing from the Clinton Administration that sticks in my crawl. Since when does who I want to marry have anything to do with government? DOMA is a joke and a slap in the face. One need only go to Vegas to see what straight people have done to defend marriage. OR better yet, pick up a paper. See all the wonderful marriages going on in Hollywood that only last a couple of weeks.

marriage only needs defending from the straight people who keep fucking it up.

It cuts into everyday civil rights that most of America takes for granted.

Whether you support gay marriage should not influence your opinion on DOMA. DOMA is more than just a "Defense of Marriage Act." It is unAmerican.

G&L, but does nothing against those serial divorce and remarry'ers who spend more time cheating than being married. That would be real defense of marriage.

See: Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

that heterosexual marriage rights can and should also be very different in different states, which is very bizarre in a day and age of TVs and airplanes and Walmarts...where there are no physical frontiers, these people want there still to be psychological frontiers.

The Settlement is over as is the Rebellion, whose getting crushed settled the issue. Tell these people that they're the latest incarnation of the Confederacy- advocates of states' rights to lower standards or keep them as low as possible, to thwart freedom and equality.

What these people don't see, in both the state and federal amendments is what will happen, and I have yet to see anyone bring this up...

Once they are passed GLBT citizens can sue the state to stop the state from granting anything to anyone who is married. All constitutions in the US say everyone is equal and no one it to be treated different. However if you have an amendment that says:

"(a) Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. (b) The rights, responsibilities, benefits, and obligations of a marriage shall only be granted, bestowed, and conferred upon a man and a woman joined in a valid marriage, and may not be conferred upon any other union or partnership."

A GLBT person can sue to stop those marriages that are recognized from receiving Tax benefits or government programs because of the equal protection clause in the Constitution. In effect this would make it so states and the federal government will recognize heterosexual marriage but no be able to do anything but say "yep you are married". The state would not even be able to marry them

Maybe Im reading to much into this:) But thats how I see it...

you are just following logic thought. Seperate but equal...my ass!

suing to stop government from granting rights to heterosexual married people would be controversial and fuel baseless charges that gays want to "destroy your marriage/the institution of marriage."

You can't really win either way, sadly. That's why in my discussions with people, I try to avoid ever saying something like, "If gay partners can't file jointly, then heterosexual married people shouldn't be able to, either." It makes it sound as though your preference is to take things away from people rather than petition to gain those things.

you cannot create a separate institution to confer rights and benefits for a different segment of American citizens. This is America, the land where everyone is supposed to be equal (haha). Its all or nothing. either we all as citizens get the right to be free and marry another person of legal age and non blood relation, or no one does.

If its marriage that is only a one man one women religious institution, then why should we use this RELIGIOUS institution to confer civic benefits in an a-religious society?

"suing to stop government from granting rights to heterosexual married people would be controversial and fuel baseless charges that gays want to "destroy your marriage/the institution of marriage."

Thats kind of my point. We can all see this coming so why are we not turning the argument on the Anti-gays? Let the public know they are the ones destroying marriage by passing laws that will take the rights away from everyone. We need to control the debate on this....

I think that maybe this may have been said in reference to Clinton signing DOMA? A lot of people in the g/l/b/t community tend to despise Clinton for signing DOMA but I think whether he intended it to be or not this was the best possible thing he could have done in that situation.

The climate in 1996 (when DOMA was passed/signed) was a lot different than it is now. If Clinton had vetoed DOMA it would have infuriated Gingrich and his cronies in Congress. They definitely had the support to override Clinton's veto (DOMA passed 342 - 67 in the house and 85-14 in the senate) and at this point they had already overridden Clinton's veto of the Securities Litigation Reform Act in Dec. of 95. So DOMA would have become law anyway. However it might have angered them enough to consider scrapping DOMA altogether and just pushing for a federal marriage amendment instead. In 1996 they would have had the support for it. By signing DOMA Clinton might have given us another 10 years to fight the FMA. It is a lot easier to fight a federal law than a constitutional amendment, laws can be overturned, amendments have to be repealed.

Also note that 96 was an election year. DOMA was signed in September of 96 two months before the election. If Clinton had vetoed DOMA the religious right would have definitely made use of this in the remaining two months of the campaign. Clinton won by a fairly healthy margin in 96, but I personally wouldn't have wanted to take the chance of having Bob Dole in office for 4 years, just to have Clinton make a point (DOMA was heading toward passage either way). You have to pick your battles......

Wow that was kinda long......ok I am though LOL

though you are most likely right. Clinton is a good strategist, and not a homophobe. We can't forget that he wanted to fully allow gays to serve openly in the military, but because of pressures, DADT was a compromise but failed policy.

On a side note, I think that had Kerry followed Clinton's advice and come out against "gay marriage," it wouldn't have done any good. Kerry's record on LGBT rights is clear cut, and the RR just would've labeled it as another "flip flop."

It's amazing, though, how in just five years, civil unions went from being oh-so-controversial to the "moderate" position.

Kerry was one of the few Senators that voted against DOMA (as was Kennedy). So yeah his record was pretty clear. Kerry actually skirted the issue saying he supported civil unions but I don't think it made much difference either way.

Some moderate repubs (even Bush.... maybe!!) have said that they're against gay marriage but would support civil unions or some kinds of protections.... I think we should call them on it! why don't the Dems push civil unions as a viable alternative? we could WIN on that issue, since civil unions DO enjoy some support, and the support creeps ever higher as time passes by. At least in the South and maybe West, this could fly, in areas where "gay marriage" could never pass.

dont make me a separate institution to give me rights. I want the ability to have what every "straight" American has, the right to marry whom I want.

No matter what the Clinton apologists here say, Clinton was a complete and utter failure in everything I hold dear as an American. He was a free-trader, withough regard to US workers or the environment. He gave ua DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He ended "Welfare as we know it" which continues to hurt so many, 10% of whom (at least) are LGBTQ. Took universal health care out of the Democratic platform. If it wasn't for Clinotn, I could be married right now and not have to worry that our wills, etc, are inadequate in the current poltical climate.

I continue to be amazed by the codependnecy of our LGBTQ community when it continues to support politicians and parties who slap us around.

It aims to deny equal citizenship to same sex couples through refusing federal recognition and allowing states to carve marriage contracts entered into by same sex couples out of the Constitution's full faith and credit requirement. Supporting DOMA is thoroughly anti GLBT rights and is a blot to the Democrats who voted for it and Clinton who signed it. You can't claim to be pro-gay and in the same breath consign me to second class citizenship.

here here!

:hi:

I just did a quick search myself:


Keyword(s):PA Mamma DOMA

Your search criteria return no matched results.
Please try again, or use advanced search to search the archives.

Anyway, not here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=175&topic_id=3861#3967

It would be cool if you could check for us.

Thanks!