Comments on: Balliett: Author of DOMA asks for repeal

By: Kari

Kari — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:02:57 +0000

And where is Ms. Balliett getting the bizarre idea that DOMA “writes discrimination into the Constitution”?

It’s a statute passed by Congress, that’s it. Congress can, likewise, change the law at will. The law has a variety of Constitutional problems as well, and could also be struck down in court.

There was an attempt to ‘write discrmination into the Constitution’ (the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment), but that failed both of the times it was proposed. Incidentally, Marilyn Musgrave, the author of the FMA, lost her seat in Congress this year.

By: Kari

Kari — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:57:03 +0000

This isn’t news. 365gay ran an article about how Barr regretted writing DOMA and called for its repeal over six months ago.

Way to be on top of the news.

By: Gianni

Gianni — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:57:54 +0000

DOMA wrote nothing into the Federal Constitution. It is a law not an amendment.

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:24:17 +0000

I must respectfully disagree with you, Jonathan. When we rally the troops with inaccurate information we can end up looking like fools. It’s not a matter of picking on the author, rather it’s making sure the discussion isn’t tainted with inaccurate information.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:38:07 +0000

Curtis Balls is right. DOMA didn’t write anything into any constitution. That’s why there was a failed attempt at a Federal Marriage Amendment which would have done just that (and more). It’s funny that an article that says “…many members of the LGBTQ community do not even know what DOMA is” actually goes on to prove the point about its own author.

Regarding the number of letters in LGBT…, I think “queer” is probably the best term to try to cover the whole range of lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, intersex, two-spirited, and questioning. It’s just one syllable anyway, so it’s easier to say and spell, and it’s easier to do a word search for, given the hundred ways people spell BLQGIT.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:09:04 +0000

Thanks for the information, Amy. I intend to show up and continue protesting this law, and I will continue to send letters, call lawmakers and generally mouth-off about this form of discrimination.

We can all choose to simply critique the writers of these stories or add our own pertinent commentaries…365GAY Editors – perhaps we can have two modes of comments, those specific to the writer of the piece and one that adds to the true conversation?

By: Trace

Trace — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:06:21 +0000

LGBTQ? What’s the “Q”? Is it folk that enjoy seeing Avenue Q on Broadway or in Vegas?

I think i’ll just keep to gay and lesbian. It’s to the point covers those of us that are most discriminated against.

By: Curtis Balls

Curtis Balls — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:00:38 +0000

Morgan,
Do not even get me started on the “balkanization” of sex in the United States. Most people’s eyes glaze over when you start repeating the laundry list of sexual minorities, some of which do not relate to each other either legally or in reality, beyond their being a probable minority status.

By: Curtis Balls

Curtis Balls — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:56:23 +0000

You damage your credibility when you write: “Many view it [DOMA] as discrimination written into the constitution….” DOMA is not a part of the U.S. Constitution. DOMA is a federal law that has yet to be challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution is not changed by mere Acts of Congress. The process requires an official amendment be passed by the U.S. Congress as well as 3/4 of all state legislatures before it becomes part of the U.S. Constitution.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:41:13 +0000

Thanks, Amy.
I thought we already had a long enough alphabetic name in LGBT. Now the name has elongated to 5 letters. Some people even care it out to 6 letters.

The longer the name gets the more determined I am to stick to 4 letters. 4 letters is plenty enough, thank you. Much more than that the name gets kind of unwieldy and cumbersome. I am happy to leave the “q” off both for the sake of brevity and also because I do not identity with that.