Some Senate Democrats Go After DOMA

Lisa Mascaro has the latest for the Los Angeles Times. The description of the article under the headline reads:

The measure prevents gay couples from receiving federal rights extended to heterosexual couples.

More precisely, it prevents same-sex couples from receiving federal recognition as being married, and thus the things the federal government attaches to marriage because government has an interest in the kind of pairing that forms an inclusive microcosm of society and naturally perpetuates society. A legally married both-sexes "gay couple" (a gay man and a lesbian) are treated exactly the same way as a married heterosexual couple comprised of a man and a woman. Not just any "heterosexual couple" will be treated that way - they have to be legally married. This same imprecise language is used on the article itself.

"It is time to right this wrong," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in introducing the bill with other senators. "This bill will ensure that all married couples in the United States enjoy equal protection of our laws."

Interesting, because as far as I can tell, the bill does nothing for those in domestic partnerships or civil unions. It's not wrong for the federal government to ignore those?

"It's time the federal government stops playing favorites and instead creates an equal playing field for all families," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group.

It is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all "families" are equal (and impossible task anyway), nor should the law treat different kinds of associations as though they were the same.

It also appears to me that should one single solitary state decide that it is wrong to discriminate against other marriages, like, say, the plural marriages of the FLDS or the polygamy of some Muslims - you know, the kind of marriages that have been historically recognized and practiced right alongside bride+groom monogamy (along with incestuous marriages), the federal government would also have to recognize them, too, even if the people lived in one of the other states.

I am unclear about whether or not this new bill would directly repeal the part of DOMA that says one state doesn't have to recognize another state's brideless or groomless marriage licenses.

Meanwhile, Ed Feulner says "DOMA Deserves a Defense".

He talks about Obama dumping DOMA.

Congress shouldn’t passively accept this challenge to its authority. Apart from anyone’s personal views on marriage is this unavoidable fact: The executive branch of our government (the president) is obligated, under the Constitution, to enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch (Congress). And whether the administration likes it or not, DOMA is the law of the land.

As he points out:

DOMA passed both houses of Congress with overwhelming majorities and was signed by President Clinton. Nearly 40 states have enacted their own versions, and traditional marriage has been enshrined in 31 state constitutions. Its validity and constitutionality are beyond question.

Yet the administration, by walking away from DOMA, is rejecting this. In effect, it’s saying, “Congress, you think the laws you pass on behalf of your constituents deserve a defense in court? Not unless we agree with them. Voters, you think marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman? You’re bigoted and irrational.”

This is larger than DOMA:

It isn’t just this particular law that’s at stake. If Congress fails to ensure that DOMA receives a robust defense, it will have failed to defend its lawmaking authority. Lawmakers need to stand up for their prerogatives as legislators. Otherwise, it’s no exaggeration to say we risk undermining our whole system of government.

He goes on to cite an Attorney General who served under Carter. The entire column is worth reading. The current and immediately former Governors of California should both read it. Over and over again.