The Justice Department is at odds with Massachusetts – the first state to allow gay marriage – over a 1996 federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts sued in July, saying that law is discriminatory and deprives gay couples in the state of some federal spousal benefits.

The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.

The law “does not prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, nor does it prohibit the states from acknowledging same-sex marriages,” according to the court filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

Massachusetts, the filing continues, is trying to claim individuals have a right to federal benefits based on marital status.

“There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits,” according to the 36-page filing.

The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Massachusetts is the first state to sue the government over the DOMA law. Some gay couples have filed their own lawsuits challenging the law, but this case is unique in pitting a state against the federal government over the issue.

Justice Dept. spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said any state “can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits.”

“Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses,” she said.

In earlier filings, the government has sought to dismiss the DOMA lawsuits brought by individuals.

The Massachusetts case could also have implications for Democratic Party politics. The Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, is trying to win the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy, at the same time her office is leading the lawsuit against the Democratic administration on the issue of gay rights.

The lawsuit brought by Massachusetts says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married since the state allowed it in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

Those benefits include federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans’ cemetery.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states – Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa – have legalized gay marriage.

He said the administration “will take the necessary steps” to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, which bars federal recognition of gay unions and denies gay couples access to pensions, health insurance and other government benefits. The administration is also committed to getting rid of the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy applying to military personnel.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DINNER

Walter E. Convention Center

Washington, D.C.

8:10 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  Please, you’re making me blush.  (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you, Barack!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)

To Joe Solmonese, who’s doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC.  (Applause.)  To my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC.  (Applause.)  Representative Patrick Kennedy.  (Applause.)  David Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa.  (Applause.)  John Berry, our Director of OPM, who’s doing a great job.  (Applause.)  Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality.  (Applause.)  Fred Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank.  (Applause.)   And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who’s in the house.  (Applause.)

Thank you so much, all of you.  It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa.  (Applause.)  I’ve made it.  (Laughter.)  I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.  (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you’ve advocated on behalf of those without a voice.  That’s not easy.  For despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open.  There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted.  And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking.  (Applause.)  And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities.  And you’re making a difference.

That’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship — (applause) — for all who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them.  It’s the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion — and defiance — wherever and whenever they could.

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — (applause) — when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement.  It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need.  (Applause.)  And it’s the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you’ve fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America.  (Applause.)

This story, this fight continue now.  And I’m here with a simple message:  I’m here with you in that fight.  (Applause.)  For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and we will not — put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room.  I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough.  I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.

Now, I’ve said this before, I’ll repeat it again — it’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago.  (Applause.)  But I will say this:  We have made progress and we will make more.  And I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community.  (Applause.)  We all have a stake in reviving this economy.  We all have a stake in putting people back to work.  We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care.  We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan.  (Applause.)

For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know — and I know — that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole.  (Applause.)  You’re also parents worried about your children’s futures.  You’re spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose a job.  You’re workers worried about the rising cost of health insurance.  You’re soldiers.  You are neighbors.  You are friends.  And, most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future.  (Applause.)

So I know you want me working on jobs and the economy and all the other issues that we’re dealing with.  But my commitment to you is unwavering even as we wrestle with these enormous problems.  And while progress may be taking longer than you’d like as a result of all that we face — and that’s the truth — do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.  (Applause.)

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield.  (Applause.)  You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.  (Applause.)  You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part.  I am committed to these goals.  And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

And there’s no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago.  In May, I met with Judy — who’s here tonight with her husband — I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill — a bill named for her son.  (Applause.)

This struggle has been long.  Time and again we faced opposition.  Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. But the Shepards never gave up.  (Applause.)  They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment.  (Applause.)  Countless activists and organizers never gave up.  You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year, Congress after Congress.  The House passed the bill again this week.  (Applause.)  And I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law.  (Applause.)

It’s a testament to the decade-long struggle of Judy and Dennis, who tonight will receive a tribute named for somebody who inspired so many of us — named for Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought tirelessly for this legislation.  (Applause.)  And it’s a testament to the Human Rights Campaign and those who organized and advocated.  And it’s a testament to Matthew and to others who’ve been the victims of attacks not just meant to break bones, but to break spirits — not meant just to inflict harm, but to instill fear.  Together, we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America.  (Applause.) When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love.  (Applause.)

But we know there’s far more work to do.  We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill.  (Applause.)  For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law.  Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities.  It’s not fair.  It’s not right.  We’re going to put a stop to it.  (Applause.)  And it’s for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms.  (Applause.)

We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world.  (Applause.)  We’re working closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near future.  (Applause.)  We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status.  (Applause.)  The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway.  And we also know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia.  Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington, D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  (Applause.)  We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country.  We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars.  (Applause.)

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford — for our military’s integrity — to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy.  Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen.  I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  That’s my commitment to you.  (Applause.)

It is no secret that issues of great concern to gays and lesbians are ones that raise a great deal of emotion in this country.  And it’s no secret that progress has been incredibly difficult — we can see that with the time and dedication it took to pass hate crimes legislation.  But these issues also go to the heart of who we are as a people.  Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides?  Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and dreams that we share?  Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded:  that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness?  I believe we can; I believe we will.  (Applause.)

And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.  (Applause.)  I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples.  I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows.  And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.  (Applause.)  And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.

For the struggle waged by the Human Rights Campaign is about more than any policy we can enshrine into law.  It’s about our capacity to love and commit to one another.  It’s about whether or not we value as a society that love and commitment.  It’s about our common humanity and our willingness to walk in someone else’s shoes:  to imagine losing a job not because of your performance at work but because of your relationship at home; to imagine worrying about a spouse in the hospital, with the added fear that you’ll have to produce a legal document just to comfort the person you love — (applause) — to imagine the pain of losing a partner of decades and then discovering that the law treats you like a stranger.  (Applause.)

If we are honest with ourselves we’ll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle.  That’s why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT families — and not just in front of gay audiences.  That’s why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll — because we want to send a message.  (Applause.)  And that’s why it’s so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me — and to make the case all across America.  (Applause.)

So, tonight I’m hopeful — because of the activism I see in this room, because of the compassion I’ve seen all across America, and because of the progress we have made throughout our history, including the history of the movement for LGBT equality.

Soon after the protests at Stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft-spoken elementary school teacher named Jeanne Manford.  It was 1:00 in the morning, and it was the police.  Now, her son, Morty, had been at the Stonewall the night of the raids.  Ever since, he had felt within him a new sense of purpose.  So when the officer told Jeanne that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely caught off guard.  And then the officer added one more thing, “And you know, he’s homosexual.”  (Laughter.)  Well, that police officer sure was surprised when Jeanne responded, “Yes, I know.  Why are you bothering him?”  (Applause.)

And not long after, Jeanne would be marching side-by-side with her son through the streets of New York.  She carried a sign that stated her support.  People cheered.  Young men and women ran up to her, kissed her, and asked her to talk to their parents.  And this gave Jeanne and Morty an idea.

And so, after that march on the anniversary of the Stonewall protests, amidst the violence and the vitriol of a difficult time for our nation, Jeanne and her husband Jules — two parents who loved their son deeply — formed a group to support other parents and, in turn, to support their children, as well.  At the first meeting Jeanne held, in 1973, about 20 people showed up.  But slowly, interest grew.  Morty’s life, tragically, was cut short by AIDS.  But the cause endured.  Today, the organization they founded for parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays  — (applause) — has more than 200,000 members and supporters, and has made a difference for countless families across America. And Jeanne would later say, “I considered myself such a traditional person.  I didn’t even cross the street against the light.”  (Laughter.)  “But I wasn’t going to let anybody walk over Morty.”  (Applause.)

That’s the story of America:  of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.  (Applause.)

Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember.  Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out.  What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community.  But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.

I believe the future is bright for that young person.  For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow.  These ideals, when voiced by generations of citizens, are what made it possible for me to stand here today.  (Applause.)  These ideals are what made it possible for the people in this room to live freely and openly when for most of history that would have been inconceivable.  That’s the promise of America, HRC.  That’s the promise we’re called to fulfill.  (Applause.)  Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling.

Thank you for the work you’re doing.  God bless you.  God bless America.  (Applause.)

I don’t mean to pile on Cleve Jones, the organizer for the National Equality March, but there are times when he talks and its easy to wonder if he likes Mary Jane a bit too much. In a recent interview he says two things that are rather naive and dismissive of local organizers who are doing important grunt work.

When asked what issues the October 11 march will address, here is Mr. Jones:

“We want decisive, unequivocal action from the president, Congress and the United States Supreme Court to ensure equal protection under the law in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states, period.”

What the devil does that mean? Repeal of DOMA and DADT? Gay marriage in all 50 states (good luck with that!). Civil rights laws for gays and lesbians? Can the man be more vague? And last time I checked the Supreme Court’s job isn’t to ensure some political outcome. Its role is only to make meaning from the laws (and if you look at the history of the Court, minus the past 50 years, its a rather conservative institution, but that is for another time).

Jones also seems to have a disdain for the daily work done by locals. You know those folk you call when the police do some shady stuff or you get beat down for having the gall to think you can walk the streets at night.

” We who are organizing the march are tired of a state-by-state, city-by-city struggle. It certainly has produced victories, but these victories are incomplete and impermanent.”

Sure, but can we get our fair due of the freedom pie by ignoring  the local activists who will be on the ground when the rally stage is put away? Former 365 blogger Pauline Park wonders if all of the focus on a national movement will dry up much needed funds for organizations who are the lifeblood for the movement Jones wants.

“What the march will do is divert scarce resources from those state and local organizations doing the real work of the movement just at a moment when they most need resources because of the recession. In fact, a lot of state and local organizations already have events planned for Oct 11 — which is National Coming Out Day — and so the scheduling of this march on that day will force many of those organizations to choose between continuing to organize events in their home communities or send members to Washington.”

I know the complaints. “Why can’t gays and lesbians support something without being so critical?” “If this march is not a success our rights will be taken away.” “Every gay and lesbian needs to support this march. If not you are traitor.”  “Support this march or get out of the way.” Phooey to all of that.

Movements are weak if they can’t stand up to sturdy and fair critique. Sure too many comments about Jones  and the march are silly and those statements need to be taken for what they are: bitter mess by bitter people. However, freedom struggles get no where if there isn’t a hard question every now and then.

None of this means you shouldn’t go to DC this weekend, and if you read it like that get some glasses. Please. Yet ask yourself, and the folk organizing this thing, how do they plan on spreading a national movement if they don’t support the ground troops?

On Sept. 15, U.S. Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Jared Polis, D-Colo., introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

I say “so-called” — and I’m not alone — because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not defend marriage, does not provide anything to encourage people to marry or stay married or improve marriages.

And I don’t think DOMA was passed with the intention of defending marriage any more than literary tests were enacted to preserve the integrity of the election process.

DOMA was enacted to maintain legal discrimination of gays and lesbians; to perpetuate the prejudicial notion that gay and lesbian relationships are lesser than straight unions, illegitimate, improper, wrong; and, sickly, if you’ll recall the time, to play partisan games.

We have lived with DOMA for 13 years, and we have seen DOMA cited in multiple ways to deny — not defend — marriage rights. Because of DOMA, legally married same-sex couples in the United States are denied many benefits extended to opposite-sex married couples, some of them small, some significant:

• Social Security survivor benefits are not awarded to the same-sex partner of a deceased spouse.

• Federal COBRA health insurance benefits are not extended to the partner of a policyholder.

•  Married gays are penalized in taxes due to DOMA and not guaranteed unpaid leave to care for a sick spouse.

And the list goes on to include about 1,000 bullet points.

So last week, two of our openly gay members of the U.S. House joined Nadler to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act, which, on the day of its introduction, already had 91 co-sponsors.

Nadler was among the 67 members of the House who voted against DOMA in 1996. He knew then the harm it posed, but, he said last week, that injury was not apparent to all members because in 1996 no state allowed for gays to marry.

“This made it easy for our opponents to demonize gay and lesbian families,” Nadler said. “Now, in 2009, we have tens of thousands of married same-sex couples in this country, living openly, raising families and paying taxes in states that have granted them the right to marry, and it has become abundantly clear that, while the sky has not fallen on the institution of marriage, as DOMA supporters had claimed, DOMA is causing these couples concrete and lasting harm. Discrimination against committed couples and stable families is terrible federal policy. But, with a president who is committed to repealing DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law.”

Neither Baldwin nor Polis were serving in Congress when the obnoxious and ugly law was passed. But some prominent politicians who held office at the time have endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, and their support proves how far America has come on the issue of same-sex marriage since the hypothetical yesterdays of 1996.

To gays and lesbians saying, “I do,” former US. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., said, “I wish I didn’t.”

Barr wrote DOMA. In 1996, GLBT newspaper reports usually referred to him as the “anti-gay Georgia congressman” and GLBT newspaper columnists usually referred to him as the “virulently anti-gay Georgia congressman.”

Barr no longer believes in DOMA. “This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted,” he said.

Former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, issued a statement last week: “When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy.”

And U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., offered a most candid statement reversing his position on DOMA: “On July 12, 1996, I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I’ve made other mistakes, this was different: It was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values.”

Blumenauer thought passage of DOMA would mellow the right-wingers. “Far from stopping it, this vote fed the bigotry,” he wrote in an op-ed piece for HuffingtonPost.com.

And the right-wingers feasted for years.

Now, can we say the banquet is over?

The Respect of Marriage Act would not legalize same-sex marriage across the United States, though some loud mouths on cable news programs and talk radio have a segment of America believing that’s the intent of the bill.

Rather, the Respect for Marriage Act would repeal DOMA and, by adopting the place-of-celebration rule recommended in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, embrace the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized, according to Nadler’s office. Marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided state by state.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, take care, TCB.

In court documents, the Justice Department makes it clear the Obama administration thinks the law is discriminatory and should be repealed. But the department, calling the law “constitutionally permissible,” said it has an obligation to defend federal laws when they are challenged in court.

The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, bars federal recognition of gay unions and denies gay couples access to pensions, health insurance and other government benefits.

The law was passed by Congress at a time when it appeared Hawaii would become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages.

Since then, six states have enacted laws or issued court rulings that permit same-sex marriage, including Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa. New Hampshire’s law takes effect Jan. 1, 2010.

The Massachusetts lawsuit was brought by seven gay couples and three widowers, all of whom were married in Massachusetts after it became the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage in 2004. They argue that DOMA violates the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because it treats married gay couples differently than other married couples.

Beatrice Hernandez and Melba Abreu, plaintiffs in the lawsuit, have been married for five years, but they aren’t allowed to file a joint tax return, as heterosexual married couples can. Hernandez said they paid nearly $20,000 more in taxes between 2004 and 2007 than they would have if they had been able to file joint returns.

“It really is separate and unequal treatment,” Hernandez said. “When we were able to marry in 2004, we didn’t receive a different marriage certificate. We received one that was equal for all citizens here in Massachusetts.”

The Justice Department, however, argues that there is no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits and says Congress is entitled to address issues of social reform on an “incremental” basis.

“Congress is therefore permitted to provide benefits only to those who have historically been permitted to marry, without extending the same benefit to those only recently permitted to do so,” the government argued in its written response to the lawsuit.

“Congress may subsequently decide to extend federal benefits to same-sex marriages, and this Administration believes that Congress should do so. But its decision not to do so to this point is not irrational or unconstitutional.”

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the legal group that filed the lawsuit, said DOMA is an exception to a long history of the federal government deferring to determinations by the states as to what constitutes marriage.

“We’re seeking justice for the widows and widowers who are denied death benefits, for people who can’t get on their spouse’s health plan, for parents who can’t file taxes jointly and pay thousands extra each year that they could put away for their children’s education or family emergencies,” said Gary Buseck, GLAD’s legal director.

A bill to repeal DOMA was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., but has little chance of making it to a vote this year.

The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), a long-time supporter of equal rights for gays, has essentially no chance for a hearing or vote during this session of Congress, according to Frank. It is the last of eight bills of specific interest to the LGBT community to be introduced to this session of Congress, which is nearing the end of the first of its two years. And Frank, the de facto leader on LGBT-related measures in Congress, says four other bills come first.

“We have pending four major pieces of [LGBT] legislation which have a serious chance to pass,” said Frank Monday in a phone interview. Those, he noted, are the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill, attached to a bill authorizing defense spending; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA); a bill to give equal benefits to the partners of gay federal employees as provided to straight spouses; and a bill to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The Nadler bill, said Frank, “has zero chance of passage, even out of committee. It’s a mistake.”

Frank’s problem with the bill isn’t just its timing on a crowded and unusually urgent Congressional calendar monopolized by health care reform, financial regulation reform, appropriations bills, and the other LGBT legislation.

“It’s a very controversial form” of the bill, he said.

 Nadler’s bill, the “Respect for Marriage Act,” (ROMA) is a simple two-page measure, seeking to do two things:

·     repeal both sections of DOMA –Section 2, which says no state can be “required” to recognize the marriage of a same-sex couple licensed in another state, and Section 3, which limits the interpretation of “marriage” for any federal purpose to only heterosexual couples; and,

·    add language that says “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.”

Frank says the latter clause abandons the strategy of “dealing with marriage state by state.” If a same-sex couple obtains a marriage license in Massachusetts and moves to California, the federal government would recognize their marriage in California.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national Freedom to Marry organization, helped write that latter provision, which has been dubbed the “certainty clause.”

“It’s called the ‘certainty clause,’” said Wolfson, in a phone interview after the press conference, “because it establishes certainty that your federal protections and responsibilities will remain with you no matter where you travel” as a same-sex married couple. “The federal government will have a consistent approach. And it’s not telling states what to do,” says Wolfson.

Frank concedes that it’s “a desirable goal,” but says, “we’re not remotely close to achieving it and it’s unwise politically.” For that reason, said Frank, he’s not one of the bill’s current 90 co-sponsors.

But doesn’t Frank’s refusal to co-sponsor the bill, even as a starting point for discussion, essentially kill the bill before it’s out of the chute?

“It does send a message that it’s a bad idea,” says Frank. “But I want to send a message.”

 Top priority for community

While the Nadler bill doesn’t have Frank’s support, it does have the co-sponsorship of two of Congress’ other openly gay members – Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.).

Joining Nadler and others at Tuesday’s press conference were some of the movement’s biggest leaders –Wolfson; Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign; Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund; and Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

HRC’s website says its communications with the LGBT community around the country indicates repealing DOMA is “a top priority.” Some 50,000 people responded to the organization’s request for examples of how DOMA affects them negatively.

“We’re in this for the long haul,” said Solmonese, in a phone interview following Tuesday’s press conference. “This is a long term strategy.” He seems untroubled by Frank’s withholding of support.

“We have a difference of opinion about tactics,” said Solmonese.    

Perhaps, but Frank likens Nadler’s bill to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome’s decision, in February 2004, to direct city officials to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples even though a state law prohibited it.

“It’s an effort to make people in the community happy,” said Frank. “That’s not our job. We owe people our judgment.”

Some political observers have blamed Newsome’s tactic as off-putting and responsible for at least some of the vote to approve Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, in California last November.

Frank says he thinks “the way we’ll win” repeal of DOMA is through the lawsuit filed by GLAD against Section 3 of the law.

Noticeably absent was the Massachusetts-based legal organization that has been leading the charge for same-sex marriage rights and against DOMA –the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. But Carisa Cunningham, a spokesperson for GLAD, said the organization supports the bill.

“We just didn’t have anyone who could make it to Washington today,” said Cunningham.

And Nadler defends ROMA: “Mr. Frank knows better than anyone that our opponents will falsely claim that any DOMA repeal bill ‘exports marriage’ in an effort to generate fear and misunderstanding.  But the dishonest tactics of our opponents should not stop us from aggressively pushing to end this horrific discrimination now, as is the consensus of the nation’s top LGBT groups who all support this approach.”

Nadler says his bill “does not tell any state who it must marry or what marriage it must recognize under state law.”

“Our bill,” says Nadler, “allows states to continue deciding those questions, while ensuring uniform access to critically important federal responsibilities and rights that hinge on marriage and upon which all married couples should be able to rely.”

© 2009 Keen News Service

Today DOMA’s repeal bill, the one with a lot of bit – i.e. rights that cross state lines – has been introduced into Congress. Now, the vote won’t be for a year and even then Barney Frank thinks that the chances for success are slim.

But there’s another kind of marriage right that is crossing state lines, at least on television. The Newlywed Game is having its first gay couple on the show, George Takei (of star trek fame) and Brad Altmen. They’re the kind of guys who make you believe in loving forever.

And this show, which bases it’s entire premise on a stereotypical version of a happy marriage is including gay people in its formula.

Alabama can’t ban the entire show because of one couple and their gay marriage (which snuck in before Prop in California. So, looks like marriage rights are, in a way, crossing state lines.

I’ve been depressed recently about the state of the gay rights movement and today is not necessarily a break through in that direction. However, the Newlywed game is like an unexpected treat. Something to perk us up so we’ll look good when we’re marching for equality next month.

Repeal legislation to be introduced Tuesday has at least 76 House sponsors. A spokesman for the lead sponsor, Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, acknowledged that repealing the Defense of Marriage Act was not a priority for movement anytime soon.

The 1996 law bars federal recognition of gay unions, including the granting of Social Security survivor payments and other government benefits to couples. The law even bars same-sex couples from receiving the benefits in states that have legalized their marriage.

President Barack Obama pledged as a candidate to work for repeal. Last month, the president insisted he still wants to scrap what he calls a discriminatory federal marriage law, even though his administration angered gay rights activists by defending it in court.

Ilan Kayatsky, spokesman for Nadler, said the repeal was being introduced now primarily “to gain support and momentum and educate people.” Nadler chairs a Judiciary subcommittee that would consider a repeal.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an influential, openly gay lawmaker, favors repeal but has not signed on as a co-sponsor of Nadler’s bill. Frank believes the legislation would have little chance of passage, because it would allow same-sex couples to take their partnership benefits across state lines, said spokesman Harry Gural.

The president of a gay advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, said Frank’s disagreement was about tactics, not the goal of repeal.

“We’re making a case for an ambitious bill, and I don’t have any illusions that it will be easy or happen overnight,” added the group’s president, Joe Solmonese.

There also has been no movement for repeal in the Senate, where it would be difficult to gain the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

1. Looks like Atlanta has a thing against gay bars (Memphis also!) We’ll stay on top of these stories for you–thanks to Trace for pushing us to do something about Atlanta. What do our readers in those two cities have to say?

2. The Democrats are hyperventilating about Joe Wilson’s inability to act like an adult when the president is speaking. He’s apologized, President Obama has accepted his apology. Calls for censure are a bit much.

3. If you call Obama a socialist, communist, fascist, Kenyan, Hitler, and/or Stalin you need to keep the tin foil hat on and sit in the corner.

4. Any Graham Swift fans out there? His new book is worth looking at.

5. A gay black gospel singer?!?! Clutch those pearls! On the serious side, it will be interesting to see how gospel music fans react to his admission.

6. Loved, as in completely, Serena Williams’ meltdown in the US Open! I’m a cheerleader for that type of foolishness.

7. Last Joe Wilson comment: did you hear him go on about his “relationship” with Michelle Obama’s family? Looks like the Wilson clan and the Robinson brood live in neighboring South Carolina towns. How that counts for a relationship is beyond me.

8. Anyone shocked that Barney Frank is not part of the push to repeal DOMA?

9. Kayne West should put the vodka down.

10. A whiff  of Cafe Bustelo brewing makes me think all is right in the world.