Defense Of Marriage Act

Almost no one was surprised when the U.S. Senate passed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, 85-14. It is largely symbolic, geared to a situation that does not and - may never - exist. If a court in Hawaii approves same-sex marriages and the states in fact can't already refuse to recognize such marriages, the law would allow a state to decide to ignore such unions. That is, if the Defense of Marriage Act itself isn't found unconstitutional. The Hawaii decision ordering a trial for two women who sued for a marriage license was in 1993, and the process won't be over until 1997 or 1998.

ACCORDING to George Bush, gays and activists judges are the new terrorists. That's the central message we got from his speech announcing his intention to defend marriage from the scourge that would defile this sacred institution. He is supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. Nowhere was the reality show, "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance," which really was an offense to marriage, mentioned in Bush's speech. Instead, the president tried to justify his stance by hiding behind the ill-advised actions of Bill Clinton and Congress when they passed the Defense of Marriage Act. That was eight years ago, and hopefully we're smarter now. In Vermont and in San Francisco, gay couples are getting married.

I COMMEND President Obama for reaffirming his commitment to end don't ask, don't tell, to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and to sign a comprehensive hate-crimes bill. Unfortunately, he forgot another form of invidious discrimination: It's illegal for gay men to donate blood. I was reminded of this several weeks ago while visiting a church that was hosting a blood-drive. I was told the Red Cross was required to enforce the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule established in 1983 to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.

Readers might be too focused on the same-sex marriage issue to appreciate the sideshow recently staged by 12 state legislators seeking to validate the Pennsylvania Defense of Marriage Act. Under the guise of protecting this law, these lawmakers are trying to use the courts in a preemptive way that violates their purpose. Courts are supposed to resolve disputes. What has happened here is that even before the Defense of Marriage Act has been challenged in court, the legislators want the courts to say it's constitutional.

THE FOLKS supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment want people to think it's just a measure to protect marriage. But if that's the case, why not propose a constitutional amendment banning divorce and adultery, as well? Any reasonable person would have to admit those two have been historically far more harmful to the institution of marriage than gay unions ever could be, right? Or how about just defining marriage as being between one man and one woman ONE TIME (unless death do you part)

President Obama's historic decision to "affirm" his "personal belief" that gays should be allowed to marry could well have be the result of a cold political calculation: Whatever risk there was in making the announcement now is nowhere near as damaging as continuing to look like a coward by insisting that Obama's beliefs were still "evolving. " But hey, so what? An American president is on record supporting marriage equality, defining it as an issue of fairness. Not only that, the "Obama for America" campaign — http://www.barackobama.com — followed up the announcement with an email re-stating current administration policy that "where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

They met at a birthday party in 1990, were instantly smitten, and, after years of transatlantic romancing, got married in California in 2008. Today, they have four adopted children, ages 6 to 11, and a comfortable home in Harrisburg. But a sword of Damocles hangs over the couple, only one of whom is an American citizen. The other is French, and vulnerable to deportation. Under federal immigration law, married binational couples usually can fix this precarious situation with a family reunification petition, seeking a green card for the foreign-born spouse.

Among the 20 senators and representatives from the Philadelphia region are leaders in the fight for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage - and some strong opponents. Other members of the delegation, when asked where they stood on the issue, seemed to struggle for the right words. Two - Democrat Robert A. Brady and Republican H. James Saxton - did not respond. The others' comments: Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D., Del.) said yesterday that he opposed a constitutional amendment as "not necessary.

A lawyer for a New Hope gay couple says that she soon will ask a Bucks County judge to act on a lawsuit seeking to bar the couple from marrying. Malia Brink, a Philadelphia lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an interview that the filing is likely "toward the end of this month. " In Washington today, the U.S. Senate is to vote on a proposal to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. On May 14, 12 Pennsylvania state representatives and a Bedford County firm sought the same result when they filed suit in Bucks County Court.

YOU don't have to be in favor of gay marriage - although we are - to see the campaign for a federal constitutional amendment banning it for what it is: 1. A colossal waste of time. 2. An attempt to change the subject from important national issues like the faulty intelligence used to take us to war, the outsourcing of jobs, and a crisis in health care. 3. An organized campaign to unite disparate groups by promoting prejudice - not to mention raising political cash. 4. All of the above.

President Obama's historic decision to "affirm" his "personal belief" that gays should be allowed to marry could well have be the result of a cold political calculation: Whatever risk there was in making the announcement now is nowhere near as damaging as continuing to look like a coward by insisting that Obama's beliefs were still "evolving. " But hey, so what? An American president is on record supporting marriage equality, defining it as an issue of fairness. Not only that, the "Obama for America" campaign — http://www.barackobama.com — followed up the announcement with an email re-stating current administration policy that "where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

President Obama may have been forced to come out sooner than he wanted on gay marriage, but he deserves tremendous credit for taking a risky political stand on one of the more divisive social issues of the day. Obama had long said his position on same-sex relationships was evolving beyond his support for civil unions. But after Vice President Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan broke ranks this week and said they support gay marriage, the pressure was on Obama to make up his mind.

They met at a birthday party in 1990, were instantly smitten, and, after years of transatlantic romancing, got married in California in 2008. Today, they have four adopted children, ages 6 to 11, and a comfortable home in Harrisburg. But a sword of Damocles hangs over the couple, only one of whom is an American citizen. The other is French, and vulnerable to deportation. Under federal immigration law, married binational couples usually can fix this precarious situation with a family reunification petition, seeking a green card for the foreign-born spouse.

NEW YORK - The city will hold a lottery for couples who want to get married on the first day same-sex marriage will be legal, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Tuesday. Bloomberg said that 764 couples would be selected to get married Sunday in the city clerk's five borough offices. Couples could register for the lottery online or by calling 311 in the 48 hours beginning noon Tuesday, and winners will be notified by Friday at noon. Officials said they were trying to keep the day special for couples and prevent those seeking wedded bliss from waiting for hours only to be turned away.

SOMETIMES the writing on the wall is in washable markers; sometimes it's carved in marble. I'm starting to think that when it comes to same-sex marriage, we'd better pull out the chisels. Recent events nationwide have shown that gay unions are becoming more acceptable, even though the opposition is strong and unwavering in its attempt to save traditional marriage. But with the official end to "Don't ask, don't tell," the attack on California's Proposition 8, the Justice Department's unprecedented refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act and New York's legislative battle over so-called "marriage equality," it's fairly clear that the "Rosie O'Donnell" has sung.

MAYBE President Obama should rename the DOJ. Instead of the Department of Justice, just call it the Department of Just-This. As in his attorneys will defend this law in court. And this one. And maybe this one. But not that one, because they don't agree with it. In fact, if they don't like a law, even though it's presumptively constitutional and the Congress hasn't made any move to amend or suspend it, they can declare it non grata at the White House. That's exactly what happened last week when Eric Holder wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner informing him that the executive branch was no longer going to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

Put into perspective, President Obama's decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act wasn't as bold a step as it first seemed. Nonetheless, it does represent progress for gays and lesbians who want to get married. In a move hailed by gay-rights advocates, Obama last week ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the 1996 law. The administration said it believes that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is indefensible. However, that doesn't mean the government will stop enforcing the law. In fact, the Justice Department said Monday that it would continue to fight a lawsuit filed by a California federal employee who unsuccessfully tried to get her same-sex partner added to her health-insurance plan.

It seems fitting that my last regular column here concerns a cultural issue, as this newspaper's editorial page and I often disagree on such issues. Political consultants warn candidates to stay away from these issues because they are so personal and emotionally charged. The abortion debate is one on which I chose to ignore their advice. The reason: I simply could not square voting to permit the killing of an innocent baby in the womb with the Constitution I swore to defend, the God I try to obey, or the people I pledged to serve.

I COMMEND President Obama for reaffirming his commitment to end don't ask, don't tell, to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and to sign a comprehensive hate-crimes bill. Unfortunately, he forgot another form of invidious discrimination: It's illegal for gay men to donate blood. I was reminded of this several weeks ago while visiting a church that was hosting a blood-drive. I was told the Red Cross was required to enforce the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule established in 1983 to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.

President Obama extended an olive branch to gay-rights activists this week who are upset that he hasn't moved fast enough on issues important to them. Obama urged the gay and lesbian community to be patient, reminding them that his administration is only six months old. Ironically, the administration has been criticized for moving too quickly on too many other big issues. Obama told the gay and lesbian audience he invited to the White House to mark the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion to judge him not by the "promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps.