Leave a Comment Sagesse
We are two votes shy of repealing DOMA in the Senate Judiciary Committee
March 17, 2011
By Adam Bink
It’s true. 18 co-sponsors introduced Senate legislation to repeal DOMA yesterday, plus Sen. Feinstein, for a total of 19 (listed below). 8 of them, including Sen. Feinstein, sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are 18 members on the Senate Judiciary Committee. So we need 10 votes. I just got off the phone with the offices of Democratic Sens. Kohl (D-WI) and Klobuchar (D-MN), who are not co-sponsors and told me they have not yet taken a position on the bill itself yet. To my knowledge, no Republicans on the committee have taken a position on this bill, either. So we are two shy.
Now, caveats. It is true that the partisan composition of the Judiciary Committee (in both the House and the Senate) is usually made of up members on the opposite ideological poles, and this Congress is no exception. The membership is more left- (and right)- wing than the rest of their parties as a whole. It’s also true that having 19 votes for repeal of DOMA isn’t close to having 60.
But I say this because there are already a lot of nay-sayers who say don’t bother introducing legislation, Republicans control the House, it will never get to the President’s desk, yadda yadda yadda. To them I say it is a BFD if repeal passes the Senate Judiciary Committee this cycle, a goal Sen. Feinstein articulated her plans to achieve at yesterday’s press conference. That will make headlines around the country, headlines of articles where it is explained what DOMA does to same-sex couples. Passage will also give momentum to drive Senators to sign onto the bill, or at least give it a second look. And suddenly we have a lot more than just 19 votes. Two votes shy of committee passage is no small thing.
Moreover, we, as a community, must start somewhere, and must begin early. Given the movement of the DOMA court cases and the public, it makes no sense to wait until there is pro-LGBT leadership to introduce something. We must make this an issue in the Presidential campaign, and the Senate and House campaigns in 2012, by making it clear that DOMA repeal is a priority, which you do in part by having a bill around which to organize. So let’s start now. Let’s start changing minds and votes.
Since we launched our campaign at 6 AM PST yesterday, over 1,000 people PER HOUR have signed up for our campaign to repeal DOMA. We are already deploying a “Step 1″ e-mail for this campaign, and more actions for next week, working with allies like Sen. Feinstein and Rep. Nadler. If you haven’t already, please sign up, and share with friends. You can also join the (as of this post) 16,457 people who clicked “Like” on Facebook, too, to spread the word.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
45 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
plainmike | March 17, 2011 at 5:28 am
sub
2.
Adam Robbins | March 17, 2011 at 5:36 am
Klobuchar should be a "yes" vote. Minnesotans need to step up the pressure on the Senator, reminding her of the consistent (and generous) support she's received from the LGBT community.
…and her office number is 888-224-9043.
3.
Straight for Equalit | March 17, 2011 at 5:37 am
❄
4.
AnonyGrl | March 17, 2011 at 5:38 am
The list of the whole committee is in the post above, but here it is again…
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm
Bios, links to home pages, email and phone info… all there! Have at it!
5.
Sagesse | March 17, 2011 at 5:40 am
Unlike the states, the US Congress actually does business all year. Imagine. Learning many things about the political process one never paid attention to before.
6.
Dave in ME | March 17, 2011 at 5:47 am
watching you watching me
7.
Kathleen | March 17, 2011 at 5:49 am
The Senate bill is S.598
Here's the list of co-sponsors:
Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI]
Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT]
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA]
Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE]
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL]
Sen Franken, Al [MN]
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY]
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI]
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA]
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ]
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]
Sen Merkley, Jeff [OR]
Sen Murray, Patty [WA]
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY]
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH]
Sen Udall, Mark [CO]
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI]
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR]
The House bill is: H.R.1116
I can't figure out how to get a direct (permanent) link in the THOMAS system, but you can look up additional information on both bill by entering the bill numbers here: http://thomas.loc.gov/
8.
Kathleen | March 17, 2011 at 5:51 am
As Adam suggested, all of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are co-sponsors except Sens. Kohl (D-WI) and Klobuchar (D-MN) and none of the Republicans have signed on.
9.
Ronnie | March 17, 2011 at 5:52 am
=
<3….Ronnie
10.
Dave in ME | March 17, 2011 at 6:05 am
I am confused, when is the actual vote? How long do we have to contact our senators? Is Congress looking at this too? I'm a little behind on this front.
Dave in Maine
11.
Ed Cortes | March 17, 2011 at 6:08 am
.
12.
Jeff Tabaco | March 17, 2011 at 7:20 am
Yeah, THOMAS never makes it easy to just get a simple durable link. Here's how to do it… on a THOMAS page on the far right side, 1.) click on "Share/Save" (it has a green icon next to "Print" and "Subscribe"), then 2.) in the resulting popup, click on the "Save" tab to get the permanent link to that particular page.
Senate S.598: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112…
House H.R.1116: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112…
13.
Kathleen | March 17, 2011 at 7:25 am
Thank you!!
14.
Josh | March 17, 2011 at 8:53 am
Do you think this could backfire in 2012? Will people vote GOP due to marriage, where if that isn't an issue they might vote Dem? I'm fearing a backlash and not gaining enough Dems in the House and even President maybe
15.
adambink | March 17, 2011 at 9:08 am
No. This isn't 2004.
16.
JonT | March 17, 2011 at 9:09 am
☮
17.
Sagesse | March 17, 2011 at 9:41 am
There will be hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Does anyone have insight into how the 'witnesses' are chosen? Is there a strategy for putting the best case forward?
I assume the anti-equality 'witness' list is filled by the Republican members, starts with Tony Perkins and Bishop Jackson, and goes downhill from there. I remember the Republican witnesses at the DADT hearings… they were pathetic. Now that FRC is officially a hate group, how can Perkins still be allowed to testify before Congress? Are there rules, written or unwritten about who's a 'credible' witness, or can the committee members invite whoever they like?
18.
Sagesse | March 17, 2011 at 10:54 am
The question was sort of rhetorical. Since the SPLC made their designation, Tony Perkins has been getting fewer pens, and fewer podiums, especially in reputable (non-right wing, not Christian) forums. We won't know until BB shows up in his slot.
19.
Mark | March 17, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Adam
I hate to break this to you but you're a first class moron. What the hell does it matter if the bill makes it through the Senate Committee? Generating headlines does absolutely NOTHING for the repeal of DOMA. Headlines can't repeal DOMA, Congress can. Even if all the democrats vote together as a block FOR the repeal of DOMA in the senate (tall order by the way), it's nowhere near the 60 votes needed for passage. It takes nine republican votes and in case you haven't noticed, those gay-bashing republican senators and representatives couldn't care less about what anyone has to say on this issue. Their feelings on this issue are set in stone and they will NEVER vote for the repeal of DOMA.
You have to be a real moron to not see that there's not a chance of Congress repealing DOMA in your lifetime because there's not a chance any time soon of democrats controlling 60 senate seats and voting together as a block on this. That's the minimum it takes for a repeal. Any further analysis is unnecessary.
No, DOMA is not going to fall any time soon because of a repeal of Congress. I'm not holding my breath for that. I'm hoping the courts strike it down.
20.
adambink | March 17, 2011 at 3:31 pm
There’s no vote scheduled, so contact away.
21.
JonT | March 17, 2011 at 5:40 pm
‘Now that FRC is officially a hate group, how can Perkins still be allowed to testify before Congress?‘
Simple – they simply claim that the SLPC is a ‘far left communistic god-hating’ organization, and that’s that.
That’s how FOX works.
22.
Straight Ally #3008 | March 17, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Going along with what Adam said, the tide is turning. At worst, it’s a 50-50 split:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-appears-to.html
23.
BK | March 18, 2011 at 12:11 am
Please, no “name-calling” here. Why should we be doing so? Whatever needs to be said can be–no insults necessary.
24.
Susan | March 18, 2011 at 1:11 am
We've been doing the impossible, going from 100% against to %50 for marriage equality in our lifetimes, pushing straight people through what we all went trough to come out, when they have no way to personally relate. One must give the family time and information to help them arrive at openness to be educated. Now we are working on the religious right of society and we all know the more bumpy and difficult time the RR gays have and they need our help to push their RR straight people through this and they have lots more misinformation to get through to arrive at openness to be educated. This is not a one conversation process. Since all people take time, including us, to get this, let's get going. Now is not the time to slow down, now is the time to jump in those RR family and social friends conversations and tell our stories. Preferably from a point of strength and attraction not promotion, doing the nonviolent, being vulnerable with our pain, and calling the Christ-higher self out of these Christians who have forgotten themselves. In the end, we earn their respect, when they realize their lapse, and we are not "sending them to hell" for it.
25.
Joe | March 18, 2011 at 1:57 am
Why dont we worry about getting a budget passed, focusing on the economy, cutting spending and bringing down the national debt?
This bill just shows how out of touch the Democrats are in DC, with the everyday issues facing Americans: fuel costs, food costs, and employment.
26.
Nicole | March 18, 2011 at 2:42 am
A) Congressmen tend to want to get re-elected. If media attention is generated as a result of a high profile repeal law then the chances of changing hearts and minds increase. If the constituency of their base becomes more pro-marriage, then a congressman will more likely vote on the bill –
B) We may not have the votes now but in the future it’s very possible we will. Having said that, a good head start is critical. Nothing happens without prior organization –
C) Adam points out that he already knows we don’t have the 60 votes. Thus there isn’t anything that you know that he doesn’t already know.
27.
AnonyGrl | March 18, 2011 at 2:56 am
Joe,
Getting married is an every day issue that affects many Americans.
It does need to be addressed, as much as those others do.
And, frankly, I don't expect that the government is going to be able to solve all of those issues in my lifetime, but I do think that marriage equality will occur.
28.
AnonyGrl | March 18, 2011 at 9:53 am
I would hope we can get someone in there to testify who will do a point for point take down of the religious right’s standard bull. We all KNOW that they will mention procreation, children, biological parents, “traditional” marriage, religious freedom, Catholic Charities of Boston… etc. ad nauseum.. We need someone who follows to address each and every one of their points, in the order that they brought them up, with the truth.
So… if they call Maggie and she says her bit about kids need biological parents, and protecting the institution of marriage… and whatever… I would respond thusly:
Maggie Gallagher said “Children need biological parents.” She twists the truth. The truth is…
She also states that this protects the institution of marriage. This ridiculous generalization is a flat out lie because…
Addressing Maggie’s next lie, the one about….
And so on. Explain clearly and simply all of the lies AS THEY ARE PRESENTED. Yes, we need to tell our stories, too… but this would be a perfect opportunity to address the lies full on, and in front of the audience that needs most at this point to hear it.
29.
Dave in ME | March 18, 2011 at 11:39 am
I think that they are capable of handling multiple issues at once, too.
Dave in Maine
30.
Felyx | March 18, 2011 at 11:55 am
Fuel costs are up due to Wall Street speculation as a result of Republican defunding of Wall Street regulatory agencies, food costs are up due to increasingly restrictive immigration laws that are forcing large farms to hire very expensive harvest equipment (as opposed to less costly and more humane Mexican slave labor…) and unemployment is rampant now that Corporations are people, Bankers are getting bail-outs and workers are being trashed!
All this was caused by Republican Authoritarianism… not by people getting married!
(Did I miss anything?)
31.
Mark | March 18, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Nicole
I agree that there are a few congressmen who, as far as this issue goes, will vote whichever way the wind of public opinion blows (in order to get re-elected). However, in the case of DOMA, I’m afraid the vast majority of republicans have STRONG personal feelings against homosexuals. Hence they will vote their heart and really care nothing about public opinion. The idea that if we somehow manage to get public opinion just above 50% in support of gay marriage, it will change the hearts of 80-year old republicans in the Senate, that is grade A bullshit. You have to understand that these Grumpy Old Men grew up in a completely different era and their prejudice has been hardened through decades.
It just amazes me that you people forget their speeches on the Senate floor in 1996 when they passed DOMA (with 85 votes), or as late as 2004 when they tried to pass the federal constitutional ban on gay marriage. They stood up on the Senate floor and without an iota of shame compared homosexual acts to “bestiality” IN 2004. Rich Santorum, former senator, just last week issued a similarly degrading statement when Obama announced he was no longer defending DOMA. You really believe you’re going to get these people to vote to repeal DOMA just because of a few headlines and public opinion approval just above 50%? You must be smoking something dear.
I think we’re working in the right direction. Suing the federal government on the constitutionality of DOMA and, with Obama walking away from the defense, light a fire under the ass of the republican bigots in congress who passed DOMA. Now they have to step in and answer to courts about the reasons they had for enacting DOMA. It’ll give me intense pleasure to see them rehash the same old bullshit arguments like procreation, tradition, blah blah blah and have the federal judges strike down each and every one of those reasons for what they truly are: cover ups for deep personal prejudice.
32.
Richard A. Jernigan | March 18, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I signed, and even added a personal note about the harm we are experiencing because of DOMA. I also shared Michelle and Cherie's video with my Facebook.
33.
sharleen | March 18, 2011 at 1:27 pm
I just phoned her office, thanks for the #.
34.
Joe | March 19, 2011 at 5:23 am
Umm the Democrats were in control of the legislature and the white house… Not the Republicans. They were'nt in the picture from 2006 -2010.
So if speculators are to blame, it's the Democrats who allowed it.
Food costs are up due to higher petroleum prices, not because of a lack of immigrant labor.
35.
Joe | March 19, 2011 at 5:26 am
With all due respect Richard, how are YOU suffering because of DOMA?
36. TheColu.mn » Blog A&hellip | March 21, 2011 at 7:37 am
[...] repeal: Where is Sen. Amy Klobuchar? By Andy Birkey 21 March 2011 No Comment The Courage Campaign notes that Sen. Amy Klobuchar is one of two Democrats who have not yet said whether they support a repeal [...]
37.
Richard A. Jernigan | March 21, 2011 at 12:11 pm
My husband and I have a legal marriage certificate that is not recognized except in five states and DC. If my husband dies, not only would I run the risk of being homeless, but even if I were allowed to remain in my own home, I would be saddled with a huge tax burden that would result in having to sell the home in order to pay it. I cannot be added to his health insurance because the carrier of said health insurance uses the DOMA definition of marriage. IN short, I have no real security at all right now. All I have is an AARP membership, AAA, and Farm Bureau Insurance. With all due respect, Joe, who are you to say that I am NOT suffering under DOMA?
38. Now just one vote shy of &hellip | March 24, 2011 at 2:02 pm
[...] a whip count of support for DOMA repeal, I was quoted in a Minnesota Independent piece regarding a post I wrote here titled “We are two votes shy of repealing DOMA in the Senate Judiciary Committee”. [...]
39.
ASKSAKLA | March 29, 2011 at 3:23 am
NASTY AS YOU GAY MEN ARE EVEN THE FREAKS YOU HAVE IN CONGRESS WILL DO NOTHING FORYOU. THIS NEW CONGRESS A MAJORITY OF THEM ARE VERY RELIGIOUS THEY DONT BELIEVE IN GAY MARRIAGE.AN WATCH OUT FOR OBUMA A BIG SCANDAL WILL ERUPT BEFORE THE END WATCH AND SEE.DOMA WILL NEVER BE REPEAL NOT A CHANCE IN HELL.
40.
plainmike | March 29, 2011 at 3:36 am
geez louise, I believe we've found the lost Cobra snake from the Bronx Zoo
41.
fiona64 | March 29, 2011 at 4:13 am
Hmm. Another one who doesn't seem to know that straight folks get up to all the same stuff gay folks do.
Another argument in favor of comprehensive sex education, and against "No Child Left Behind" if the punctuation, etc., (or lack thereof) is anything to go by.
Sad little troll … no cookies for you.
42.
AnonyGrl | March 29, 2011 at 4:22 am
Also, I noticed that lesbian women, bisexuals and transgendered people don't seem to bother ASKSAKLA (was that, I wonder, a sad attempt at Alaska?), only "Nasty… gay men" do.
43.
JonT | March 29, 2011 at 8:37 am
I LOL'd.
@ASKSAKLA:
1. GOOGLE "CAPS LOCK", "PUNCTUATION", AND "GRAMMAR".
2. The President's name is "Obama".
3. What about Lesbians, Bisexual, and Transgendered?
4. Your religion is irrelevant.
Thanks for playing
44.
Ronnie | March 29, 2011 at 10:47 am
Obvious troll is obvious…….ok, moving on…….. 8 / …Ronnie
45.
AnonyGrl | March 29, 2011 at 10:53 am
LOL.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.