Leave a Comment Sagesse
DOMA repeal: Live at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
July 20, 2011
Updates will scroll from the bottom
By Adam Bink
9:45 AM EST: Good morning from the hearing room. Chairman Leahy opens the hearing by making remarks about New York and Vermont moving forward on marriage; how he and his wife might feel if their marriage were not acknowledged by the federal government; and how we will hear today from Reps. Nadler, John Lewis, and Steve King.
9:54 AM: Leahy reiterates that the Respect for Marriage Act will not force any state to marry any same-sex couple or change laws.
Update: A live webcast can be found here.
9:56 AM: Sen. Feinstein, the lead sponsor and our partner in this fight to repeal DOMA, is now speaking. She starts by thanking Chairman Leahy for his leadership. She notes how family law is typically the domain of the states, and how this law intervenes unnecessarily. She thanks the 16 Californians who submitted statements for the record. She notes there are between 50,000 and 80,000 married same-sex couples in the nation, 18,000 of which are in California.
9:58: Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights legend, starts by noting that in the year 2011, that it is still necessary to hold hearings and debate whether human beings should be able to marry the one they love. He notes in his home state of Alabama, there were colored water fountains and white water fountains, among other establishments with such distinctions. He said when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, it was a stain on our democracy. Rep. Lewis notes that marriage is a basic human right, and no government, federal or state, should be able to tell people they cannot marry. Congress, he says, should not only repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, but should work to ensure equality across the country. Justice delayed is justice denied, and passing this bill is the simple right thing to do. “These are our brothers and sisters, we cannot turn our back on them; we must join hands and work to create a more perfect union.”
10:05: Rep. Steve King of Iowa: Traditional marriage is a cornerstone of our society, S.598 (the Respect for Marriage Act) would demean this institution. Says that the arguments conveyed by same-sex marriage advocates could be used to promote marriage between family members. Notes that Iowans voted out the three Iowa Supreme Court justices up for retention last November. Notes 31/31 votes at the ballot level. Complains that the Obama Administration believes DOMA is unconstitutional despite no court ruling so (which is actually false).
10:10: Rep. Nadler: Reviews what the Respect for Marriage Act would do, and notes how it would actually protect states’ rights and restore equal respect for marriages in every state. It would continue to allow every religion to choose whether or not to permit same-sex marriage.
10:17: Sen. Grassley, the ranking member: Notes that several members of this body on the pro-equality side voted for DOMA in 1996. They did not do so, he asserts, to harm gay and lesbian people, but to support “traditional marriage.” Argues that states that make changes in marriage laws should not “impose” those changes on other states (although the Respect for Marriage Act would not do such a thing). Says there was a witness he would have called, but she declined, citing intimidation because of her support of DOMA. Grassley chides about respect and the First Amendment (as if this doesn’t happen on both sides).
10:24: Witnesses who are not members of Congress will start speaking. Ron Wallen from Indio, CA is up. Ron begins by noting how his husband, Tom, was diagnosed with leukemia. He passed away on March 8. They were married in California in 2008. He notes how Social Security benefits were to be $1,850, $300 for a pension, and his own benefit of $900 were part of their income. Notes how Social Security survivor’s benefit allows people like Ron to stay in their home; however, he now has to worry about paying his mortgage because their combined income dropped dramatically and was not supplemented by survivor’s benefits. Asks simply to be treated fairly.
10:31: Tom Minnery from Focus on the Family is up. Argues that he represents the people who voted for “traditional marriage.” Goes on to complain about marriage being destroyed.
Ed. note: On the Republican side, Sens. Grassley and Hatch are present. On the Democratic side, Chairman Leahy and Sens. Feinstein, Franken, Schumer, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons and Blumenthal are present.
10:36: Andrew Sorbo from Connecticut is up. Spent 35 years as a teacher/principal in the public and Catholic schools. Lost his husband of nearly 30 years recently, a professor of medicine at Yale. Joined in a civil union in Vermont. His husband was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. They were married in 2009 in Connecticut, but Colin (his spouse) died for months later. Was forced to pay additional health insurance expenses, almost one-third of his entire pension, as a consequence of DOMA. Unable to inherit Social Security benefits.
10:42: Susan Murray from Vermont is up. Susan was a co-counsel in Baker v. Vermont which helped established civil unions. She and her wife cannot file joint tax returns and must pay far more in taxes because of DOMA. Her wife has to pay tax on the value of her health insurance coverage for Susan, which amounts to about $6,200 per year down the drain.
10:48: Chairman Leahy asks Murray why marriage was so much more important to her than civil unions. Murray responds that everyone knows what marriage is, but civil unions are confusing to people. Leahy asks if DOMA protects families or if it’s the other way around. Murray notes a same-sex couple who adopted three kids in Albany, including one who is HIV+ because his mother was an intravenous drug user. DOMA undermines their ability to care for these children: they can’t file joint tax returns, and so they spend money they cannot spend on tutors or college for the children. Chairman Leahy asks Minnery if children benefit when their parents have diminished incomes under DOMA, and asks, aren’t they put at a disadvantage. Minnery argues that those children are better off with no home, then corrects himself (wow). Minnery keeps dancing around the question. Leahy repeats the question. Minnery acknowledges, yes, children are made worse off.
10:57: Sen. Grassley notes the Respect for Marriage Act would repeal Section 3 and Section 2. Asks Minnery if Section 2 has anything to do with benefits. Minnery notes that one’s financial situation remained the same before Section 2 and would remain the same afterwards. Notes Section 2 has to do only with states. Warns that if DOMA were to be repealed, then “presumably” same-sex marriages would have to be recognized in other states that have not enacted such laws (this is actually false). Repeats assertion that social science research “shows” kids are better off in households of opposite-sex parents (this is also false, and refuted by various professional medical associations).
11:03. Sen. Feinstein is given the gavel temporarily while Chairman Leahy steps out. Feinstein notes that the courts have ruled that marriage laws belong to the states. Reiterates that nothing in this bill would obligate any state or religion to recognize a same-sex marriage. Notes that same-sex couples are subject to thousands of dollars of additional taxes because of DOMA, in the area of gift tax, estate tax, divorce, filing taxes jointly. Notes that if a woman gives her legally married wife a piece of jewelry or electronic item, they have to pay gift taxes, whereas opposite-sex couples do not have to do so as married couples recognized by the government. Notes that veterans’ benefits are affected under DOMA, including cemetery burial for spouses of gay servicemembers.
Ed. note: Sen. Durbin just arrived.
11:10: Sen. Whitehouse notes the stories of several Rhode Island couples who are ineligible for Social Security benefits, filing taxes jointly, and other rights that heterosexual married couples have. Thanks Sen. Feinstein for her leadership.
Ed. note: Chairman Leahy is back.
11:15: Sen. Franken says he believes passage of the Respect for Marriage Act would be a historical moment akin to passage of the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Notes Minnery cited an HHS report in his testimony, a report that Franken got ahold of and read. Asks Minnery whether a same-sex couple that has married and adopted kids would fall under the definition of a “nuclear family.” Minnery says no, a nuclear family means husband and wife. Franken says, “it doesn’t.” He begins to read a quote from the study that backs up his assertion, and asks how we can trust the rest of Minnery’s testimony if he screwed that up. Ouch.
He asks Murray a quick question and finishes.
11:21: Sen. Coons, who introduced the Respect for Marriage Act alongside Sen. Feinstein on March 16th, argue that it isn’t the business of the federal government to reach into American homes and decide who is married and who is not. This is a strong argument with regard to states’ rights. Notes that his own marriage did not “magically dissolve or disappear” because New York enacted marriage recognition for same-sex couples. As a religious person, does not believe his own faith empowers him to interpret the will of God. Asks an extremely smart question of the witnesses how DOMA has harmed them other than with respect to benefits. Sorbo notes that as a teacher for 35 years, he led the Pledge of Allegiance ending with “and liberty and justice for all,” knowing it was false. Also had to use the word “I” when asked if he was going on vacation, instead of “we,” knowing that would lead to questions on who the “we” was. Argues DOMA is an insult to dignity and equality. Criticizes supporters of DOMA as descendants of sexists, racists, and other people who sought to deny equality.
11:28: Sen. Blumenthal thanks the witnesses for giving a face and a voice to the “practical consequences” of DOMA. Nations, he says, are “judged by their capacity for growth,” and today’s hearing marks a moment of growth. Asks Sorbo to expand on how he was not able to access his IRA account after Colin died. Sorbo responds that the IRA was in Colin’s name, and they tried to transfer it over to his name, they spent hours and hours on the phone. He was eventually forced to withdraw at inopportune circumstances. If he were a woman, he could have deferred withdrawal for seven extra years — enough time to build up the account before withdrawal.
11:36: Sen. Durbin notes his support for the Defense of Marriage Act and his original co-sponsorship of the Respect for Marriage Act, quoting Abraham Lincoln, “I’d rather be right some of the time than wrong all of the time.” Reiterates that the Respect for Marriage Act does not mandate any religion to change its beliefs or any states to change its laws.
Ed. note: Sen. Feinstein notes a vote coming up at noon, explaining the need for her and others to leave, and adjourns the second panel, moving on to the third. Sen. Coons will lead the third and final panel. Sen. Schumer also returns.
11:42: Joe Solmonese of HRC notes, for the first time this hearing, the effects of DOMA on bi-national couples, like Courage members Stylianos Manolakakis and Robert Koehl of NYC, who spoke at yesterday’s press conference.
11:47: Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund pontificates about the definition of marriage and why government has an “interest” in marriage. Cites the Loving case, interestingly, and notes the Court’s assertion that marriage is vital to survival of the human race (not clear on why this is relevant to his argument).
11:52: Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center is up. His full testimony can be found here. The highlight which generated incredulous laughter is his assertion that the Respect for Marriage Act would enable polyagmous relationships, which he asserts to be “one of the current projects of the left.” Um.
One other note is that he argues the Respect for Marriage Act would force heterosexual taxpayers to “subsidize” the marriages of same-sex couples. It’s weird, because no one ever asks what the bottom line would look like if heterosexual couples were allowed to do something.
11:58: Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry notes the arc of history with respect to where things were in 1996 and where they are today. Notes the support of Rep. Bob Barr and President Clinton. Notes that thousands of couples are preparing to marry in New York, but, at the same time, will soon feel the sting of discrimination from the federal government.
12:05: Sen. Klobuchar, who publicly is supportive of the Respect for Marriage Act but refuses to co-sponsor, asks how the passage of time has affected the debate on same-sex marriage. Solmonese notes the testimony of the earlier panel.
12:12: Sen. Coons asks Joe about how DOMA has secondary negative effects on LGBT youth and culture. Joe notes societal disparity in places like hospital emergency rooms in most places across the country.
12:16: Finally, Sen. Schumer reads a statement and then adjourns the hearing. Thanks to everyone for reading and commenting. This thread will no longer update.
Ed. note: Courage Campaign’s statement on the hearing can be found below.
STATEMENT OF COURAGE CAMPAIGN CHAIR RICK JACOBS ON HISTORIC SENATE HEARING TO REPEAL DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA)
Courage Campaign Leads the Grassroots Effort
Washington, D.C. – The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that has been blatantly discriminating against same-sex married couples for nearly 16 years was the focus of a first-ever Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on repealing the law today.
On Tuesday, Sen. Feinstein (D-California) and Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the Courage Campaign, hosted a news conference to discuss ongoing efforts to repeal the law. They were joined by three same-sex couples who shared their stories of hardship under DOMA.
“These Republican senators, and any other senator who has not yet signed up to co-sponsor or support our bill to repeal DOMA have heard, and will continue to hear, thousands and thousands of stories of hardship from same-sex married couples from around the country,” said Jacobs. “We are tired of second-class, and in some cases, third-class citizenship in our own country. We pay taxes, we serve our communities and we work hard. We are entitled to the same rights, freedoms and benefits as other Americans. No more, no less.”
Gay couples in D.C., New York, and elsewhere now have the right to legally marry. However, same-sex married couples from every state in the U.S. are barred from 1,100 federal rights and privileges afforded to straight married couples. “The Respect for Marriage Act,” introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) on March 16 of this year, is a bill that would restore their rights and repeal DOMA. The Courage Campaign, a grassroots organizing network, launched a grassroots effort to support the Respect for Marriage Act.
Since March, Courage Campaign members have used direct contact, petitions and social media to urge four senators to co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act. The Courage Campaign targeted Sens. Klobuchar, Kohl, Udall of New Mexico, and Bingaman and asked them to co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act, all with success. Sen. Feinstein also held a conference call with Courage Campaign’s DOMA field captains (of which there are 75 in 43 states) earlier this year to thank them for their hard work and discuss next steps in the campaign.
Earlier this month, over 25,000 Courage members petitioned President Obama to formally endorse the Respect for Marriage Act. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced the White House’s unprecedented endorsement of the bill, in a rare move usually reserved only for legislation that has passed one house of Congress. This move underscores the urgency with which DOMA must be repealed.
# # #
Courage Campaign is a multi-issue online organizing network that empowers more than 700,000 grassroots and netroots supporters to work for progressive change and full equality in California and across the country. Through a one-of-a-kind online tool called Testimony: Take A Stand, the Courage Campaign is chronicling the sights, sounds and stories of LGBT families and all who wage a daily struggle against discrimination across America. For more information about Testimony, please visit, http://www.couragecampaign.org/Testimony.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
96 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
bjason | July 20, 2011 at 6:52 am
Live Feed here:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/resources/webcasts/li…
2.
Ronnie | July 20, 2011 at 6:55 am
Watching…… <3…Ronnie
3.
LCH | July 20, 2011 at 7:15 am
♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡
4.
Ronnie | July 20, 2011 at 7:22 am
NOM ally blames murder of little boy on LGBT people. This is the type of mentally unstable person NOM represents & affiliates themselves with.
OMG! Video: NY 'protect marriage' ally blames gays for young boy's death! http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/07/omg-…
There are not enough words. I'm with Jeremy….. "Jaw = dropped." ……… : O ….Ronnie
5.
Bill S. | July 20, 2011 at 7:32 am
Is he saying that this murder happened after the Marriage Equality Act passed, therefore it was caused by the Marriage Equality Act? Questionable cause fallacy much?
6.
Mackenzie | July 20, 2011 at 7:40 am
Senators Grassley and Nadler are on my S**t list. Funny how their only "strong" argumetns are straight up false. I think I will be contacting both men later.
7.
JinMD | July 20, 2011 at 7:43 am
Gut wrenching to hear these men tell the stories of their spouse's deaths and what's happened since. Damn.
8.
Chris | July 20, 2011 at 7:44 am
Is all the testimony online somewhere?
9.
Mackenzie | July 20, 2011 at 7:44 am
I wish I were able to watch it live :/
10.
JinMD | July 20, 2011 at 7:48 am
http://judiciary.senate.gov/resources/webcasts/li…
11.
Chris | July 20, 2011 at 7:52 am
let me clarify, is the WRITTEN testimony online somewhere?
12.
Ann S. | July 20, 2011 at 7:55 am
Watching . . .
13.
Kathleen | July 20, 2011 at 7:59 am
The bigots can't even manage to stay on topic when asked questions by the bigot-Senators.
14.
Ronnie | July 20, 2011 at 8:00 am
Did that jack@$$ Minnery just say that children who have LGBT parents would be better off if they had no parents?…………. > / …Ronnie
15.
rick jacobs | July 20, 2011 at 8:01 am
He did, then corrected himself.
16.
New | July 20, 2011 at 8:04 am
It sounds like Mr. Minnery forgot to take his vitamins this morning.
17.
Kathleen | July 20, 2011 at 8:17 am
Go get 'em, Al!!!
18.
celdd | July 20, 2011 at 8:19 am
Al nailed him!
19.
lsfoster | July 20, 2011 at 8:20 am
Whoa, Al just laid a massive smackdown! That was pretty epic!
20.
Ronnie | July 20, 2011 at 8:21 am
"Asks Minnery whether a same-sex couple that has married and adopted kids would fall under the definition of a “nuclear family.” Minnery says no, a nuclear family means husband and wife. Franken says, “it doesn’t.” He begins to read a quote from the study that backs up his assertion, and asks how we can trust the rest of Minnery’s testimony if he screwed that up."
That was perfect….Minnery = FAIL….. lol…….. XP …Ronnie
21.
celdd | July 20, 2011 at 8:23 am
For those not listening, Al questioned Minnery about study he quoted that kids did better with a Mom and a Dad. Al pointed out that the study referred to nuclear families (which Minnery said means a Mom and a Dad) as two PARENTS – it said nothing about what sex they are.
Also, are no Republicans asking questions again?
22.
AnonyGrl | July 20, 2011 at 8:34 am
Go AL!
It sounds like the room is fairly heavily pro-equality from the transcripts above… is that really the case? What is the reaction from the observers in the room?
23.
AdamG | July 20, 2011 at 8:39 am
Memo to Mr. Minnery: Your bigotry is hanging out for everyone to see.
So typical of these bigots to not know when they've just blown their case. See: Prop 8 appeals.
24.
AdamG | July 20, 2011 at 8:40 am
I think the Republicans are afraid to ask any questions. It might remind people that hey, these bigots are their allies.
25.
Ronnie | July 20, 2011 at 8:44 am
This is what Tony Perkins & the Fascist Research Council (FRC) was praying for:
GHANA: Arrest All Gays http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/07/ghana-arrest…
A Ghana official has ordered the arrest of all gays in the country & enlisted landlords & tenants to hand over their family, friends, & neighbors to the Ghana gestapo….YES this is what Tony Perkins was praying for recently in one of their stupid little fascist murder advocating prayers.
Please sign & share this petition….thank you…… <3…Ronnie
http://www.change.org/petitions/demand-ghana-to-r…
26.
Kathleen | July 20, 2011 at 8:49 am
Yay! We get to hear about procreation now. I hope we get to hear how fun it can be.
27.
Alan_Eckert | July 20, 2011 at 8:59 am
I wish I could follow along today, but I will be going up to the top of the Golden Gate Bridge tower!
28.
Alan_Eckert | July 20, 2011 at 9:01 am
Is Cooper there? That's right up his alley!
29.
RCChicago | July 20, 2011 at 9:03 am
Want to add my thanks to Adam for being our eyes and ears to this historical event.
30.
RCChicago | July 20, 2011 at 9:06 am
Not Nadler. He's extremely supportive!
31.
AnonyGrl | July 20, 2011 at 9:11 am
I think someone needs to stand up in the hearing and say
"Ghana, the country so recently rebuked for a "kill the gays" bill they were trying to pass, is now, today, rounding gays up and arresting them SIMPLY for BEING GAY. Were we to draw a line and say "gay rights advocates on this side" and "gay rights opponents on that side", Ed Whelan, ADF, FOF and many others would stand on the side of the government of Ghana, and seek to round up and exterminate homosexuals, rather than give them equal rights.
"Equality is not a spectrum. It is not a qualified, maybe, maybe not, only if you meet these qualifications and live in these states and can jump through these impossible hoops situation. Equality is a very simple yes or no question. Are we equal? Yes or no?
"If you tell us we are unequal, that others are to have better treatement than we do, how long will it be before we need to fear the tromp of police boots at OUR doors?"
32.
Bill S. | July 20, 2011 at 9:13 am
I think today is the only day for hearings. I don't know when the committee will vote (presumably today). We have the votes to vote it out of committee. It will then go to the Senate floor for debate by the full membership of the Senate. It will take 60 votes to end debate and vote on the bill. This is probably where this legislation will end.
33.
AdamG | July 20, 2011 at 9:13 am
They're not interested in reality, or logic. That's so 20th century, you know.
34.
Adam Bink | July 20, 2011 at 9:18 am
You bet.
35.
Ronnie | July 20, 2011 at 9:39 am
& there it is….. Bryan Fisher from the American Fascist Association (afa) has declared that the religious clauses of the first amendment do not guarantee "Freedom of Religion" to anybody & everybody that doesn't bow down to him……I mean his version of "God", religion, & holy book. …….. > I …Ronnie
American Family Association: The First Amendment Only Applies To Christians http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/07/american-fam…
36.
AnonyGrl | July 20, 2011 at 9:51 am
"One other note is that he argues the Respect for Marriage Act would force heterosexual taxpayers to “subsidize” the marriages of same-sex couples.'
Don't WE currently subsidize the marriages of opposite sex couples? Haven't we been doing so all our lives? Wouldn't this just level that playing field?
37.
Johan de Vries | July 20, 2011 at 9:51 am
Ah, okay. Thanks.
38.
justjoel59 | July 20, 2011 at 10:01 am
Absolutely GREAT job of live-blogging! Thank you so much!
39.
justjoel59 | July 20, 2011 at 10:08 am
Is there any state that legally refuses to recognize a marriage in another state, excluding same-sex marriage ? Common-law marriages, marriages between first cousins, for example.
40.
Ann S. | July 20, 2011 at 10:11 am
Probably. They have that right, if it violates their "public policy". This was true of my parents' marriage in several states we lived in prior to Loving v. Virginia.
41.
Ann S. | July 20, 2011 at 10:12 am
From TowleRoad — Grassley implies someone (maybe our beloved Maggie?) would have testified, but was intimidated by threats — http://www.towleroad.com/2011/07/grassley.html
42.
justjoel59 | July 20, 2011 at 10:21 am
but Loving struck those laws down. States must honor marriages performed in other states, with the sole exception of same-sex marriages. I'm pretty sure that if first cousins married in CA (they can) and then moved to a state where marriage between first cousins is prohibited, their marriage wouldn't cease to exist!
43.
FlexSF | July 20, 2011 at 10:23 am
Christianist bigots are whining over the fckh8 videos.
[youtube bWjkhVDA24g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWjkhVDA24g youtube]
There are newer, and equally expressive videos on fckh8.com
44.
aquaCA | July 20, 2011 at 10:40 am
Love it!
45.
Sagesse | July 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
Written testimony by the Williams Institute filed for today's hearing. Well worth reading.
http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/DO…
46.
Sagesse | July 20, 2011 at 11:17 am
Anoka-Hennepin, Minnesota School District, Under Federal Investigation For Alleged Civil Rights Violation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/anoka-he…
47.
Unicycle | July 20, 2011 at 11:22 am
"11:36: Sen. Durbin notes his support for the Defense of Marriage Act and his original co-sponsorship of the Respect for Marriage Act, quoting Abraham Lincoln, “I’d rather be right some of the time than wrong all of the time.” Reiterates that the Respect for Marriage Act does not mandate any religion to change its beliefs or any states to change its laws."
Am I reading this wrong? It looks like perhaps the thread got Defense of Marriage and Respect for Marriage backward in the first sentence.
48.
Steve | July 20, 2011 at 11:32 am
First cousin marriages from other states are usually recognized I think
49.
Sagesse | July 20, 2011 at 11:41 am
I believe some states do not recognize common law marriages.
50.
Alexander | July 20, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Hey AnonyGrl, it's Uganda's Kill the Gays bill, not Ghana's, FYI.
51.
alexander | July 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm
ZOMG http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/expe… Hahahahahaha, this is actually really good news, other states can see how much economic benefit they will gain! hha
52.
DaveP | July 20, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Perhaps the word "original" is in the wrong place – back in the day, he supported DOMA, but now he has evolved and he is a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act. So he's saying he was wrong to support DOMA and he is now correcting that mistake.
53.
AnonyGrl | July 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Ack… you arre correct. I wrote this quickly and in a moment of passion. OOPS.
Unfortunately, the result seems to be the same in both countries.
54.
Ally | July 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I missed the live feed, but does anyone know where I can view the hearing later?
55. PHOTOS: DOMA Repeal’&hellip | July 20, 2011 at 12:53 pm
[...] For an excellent blow-by-blow account of today’s hearing, check out Adam Bink’s Prop8TrialTracker. [...]
56.
Lodi Gal | July 20, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Does anyone know who the bigoted woman was that Sen. Grassley was referring to who felt to threatened to testify? Was it Maggie? Karen England? was it just a straight up lie?
57.
Leo | July 20, 2011 at 1:02 pm
I think it's in the right place – he was saying that he was one of the original co-sponsors of RMA (as opposed to senators who joined later as co-sponsors).
58.
Lodi Gal | July 20, 2011 at 1:02 pm
I think you can watch it here at the Senate web archive.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/resources/webcasts/in…
59.
Lodi Gal | July 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Sorry for typos, grammar gaffes–posting on the fly.
60.
GusinBC | July 20, 2011 at 1:05 pm
yeah you're thinking of king. By his argument then interracial marriage should be repealed in missisippi as the majority there do not support it either
61.
fiona64 | July 20, 2011 at 1:32 pm
That is correct. Whether or not common-law marriages are recognized in states outside of which they occurred varies from state-to-state (there are only seven states that allow for them). One of them is Kansas. When my uncle passed away after an illness, it came out in the wash that he and my aunt had never legally married — and she would have lost out on his veterans' benefits had my father not signed an affidavit stating that they lived together as a married couple for more than seven years in Kansas (that was Oregon's requirement, and the Federal government's, at the time). (And yes, they had lived together for that long in Kansas.)
62.
Steve | July 20, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Yes, which is why I didn't mention them. But that's more because common law marriage are becoming pretty uncommon (no pun intended) in the US
63.
Sagesse | July 20, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Probably worth pointing out that a couple in a common law marriage always have the option to marry in any state.
64.
Lora | July 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm
That's always the excuse they give when they have no credible witnesses…a nameless witness would have testified if not for the nameless, (and most likely,) non existent threat.
65.
Lora | July 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm
My guess…straight up lie.
66.
Cat | July 20, 2011 at 2:58 pm
There are several gay couples who are not willing to testify for fear of immigration status repercussions. And those fears aren't irrational or contrived…
67.
Adam Bink | July 20, 2011 at 3:00 pm
No clue. I'm on the plane back to LA. The hearing was terrific. I'll write up a full post. It was frustrating, though, that Adam had to use my computer (his did not get wifi). I really miss writing as it goes, especially the strong comparisons and reference points to the Prop 8 Trial. Their side never talks about the issue; they always change the subject. Their argument is always, "if gays can marry, people will teach gay and my kids will catch the gay in school." This hearing was even more absurd because here we focused only on states that have marriage already (or are about to) and the rights that DOMA prevents states from granting to its gay and lesbian citizens because of DOMA. And they, as with Mr. Cooper, celebrate not changing minds. Their world got stuck about 50 years ago and they want it to stay that way.
68.
Donald | July 20, 2011 at 3:37 pm
It will take 60 votes because Sen. Majority Leader Reid (D) refuses to get rid of the filibuster rule and go to a majority vote. So much for Democratic leadership, especially now that Obama has endorsed lowering the cost of living Social Security payments to seniors.
69.
aquaCA | July 20, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Franken Takes Down Anti-Gay Witness For Mischaracterizing Study
[youtube 318DYr_K8J4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=318DYr_K8J4 youtube]
70.
Deborah | July 20, 2011 at 3:56 pm
acquaCA, thanks for posting this Franken clip, it has been making the rounds on various sites. So refreshing to see a Senator who actually does his homework, or at least has his staff do the research. I'm almost tempted to move to Minnesota to have the honor of being represented by him!
71.
415kathleenk | July 20, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Well. I happy to admit i was wrong about allowing the 'other side' to testify at this hearing. The utter bankruptcy of their arguments was abundantly on display. Sen Franken's take down of the FRC guy was wonderful. And he really does do his homework- he's a geek from way back.
72.
Sagesse | July 20, 2011 at 4:23 pm
After 15 Years of DOMA, Hearing Reveals a Nation Transformed
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/…
"E.J. Graff, a resident scholar at the Brandeis Women’s Studies Research Center, is a journalist and the author of What Is Marriage For? The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution (Beacon Press)."
73.
AnonyGrl | July 20, 2011 at 4:54 pm
From the NOMblog…
http://www.nomblog.com/11587/ They are trying to brag about how much media attention their Benedict Arnold postcard mailer is getting.
Since I can't post over there… I will put my response here….
Letting the articles speak for themselves, I will just post some highlights…
"McDonald… brushed off the NOM mailer. "It's a free country and they're welcome to do anything they want … I did what I thought was the right thing to do, and most people have been appreciative of that," he said."
"…the names of several Republicans have been floated as possible challengers to McDonald in a primary next year, but when GOP leaders checked with them, they denied their interest."
"We are grateful to these politicians and hope that the power of the LGBT community and our allies will help make it so that they aren't punished for supporting marriage equality."
"It’s unlikely that NOM would succeed in any, or all, of these efforts. Two independent polls in New York this year indicated support for marriage equality at 58 percent, the highest in the state’s history. The Quinnipiac University poll also reported that a “record low” of 36 percent of New Yorkers were opposed. The results matched a Siena Research Institute poll in April. Of course, NOM’s real intent here is to keep donations flowing by continuing to spread, fear, hate and bigotry. "
And my PERSONAL favorite:
"Senator Mark Grisanti ran for office on a traditional marriage platform, and solicited and accepted a $4,000 campaign contribution from NOM."
So NOM, basically you are pissed that he took your money and did the right thing anyway.
74.
AnonyGrl | July 20, 2011 at 4:58 pm
I am not a huge fan of these FckH8 vids, but this one made me giggle.
75.
Sarah | July 20, 2011 at 5:10 pm
I honestly hate hearing the f-word, but love the points these videos make. I'm torn between supporting them and finding them distasteful. But still I watched…
76.
Ronnie | July 20, 2011 at 5:27 pm
"It Gets Better – the story of a gay Muslim Turk coming out" ……………… <3…Ronnie
[youtube fSGDN3u2_5E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSGDN3u2_5E youtube]
77.
David Henderson | July 20, 2011 at 6:08 pm
No, what he said was, "Without question, those children are certainly better off than had they no parents." That is, children with same-sex parents are better off than children with no parents. However, he didn't say this very loud, and it was somewhat oddly worded (it would have been clearer had he included an "if" in there), which prompted the request for clarification.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jccfXzt6Nas (35 seconds in is the sentence in question)
78.
John_B_in_DC | July 20, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Meanwhile NOM is headlining their latest blog post "New Quinnipiac Poll: Majority Does NOT Support SSM" (http://www.nomblog.com/11522).
They seem to think it's a good thing that the latest Quinnipiac poll shows 48% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage and 46% support. Of course given the numbers they cite an equally correct headline would be "New Quinnipiac Poll: Majority does not OPPOSE same-sex marriage". And if you follow their link to the full poll results (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1624) and look at some of the other numbers they're not telling their readers about, another alternative headline would be "Support for same-sex marriage increases substantially since 2009 while opposition plummets".
79.
Paul in Minneapolis | July 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm
I don't know why I waste any time on the NOM blog. I rarely visit it any more, but I've taken a peek over the last two or three days. I've noticed their new theme — or maybe it's just a new twist on an old theme: making their side out to be the victims, this time with people facing consequences for refusing to do their jobs for "reasons of faith." Here's the reply I posted there, which, like yours, will never see the light of day:
80.
Paul in Minneapolis | July 20, 2011 at 6:35 pm
The latest in a series of articles trumpeting NOM's newest theme — business owners and employees citing their faith or conscience as a reason to refuse service to certain customers.
I can think of several other examples in the vein of this theme. Some have actually happened:
*A Christian town clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
*A Catholic pharmicist who refuses to fill birth control prescriptions
*A muslim cashier who refuses to scan packages of bacon
*A muslim taxicab driver who refuses to transport customers carrying unopened bottles of wine
*A racist piano teacher, working for a music store chain, who refuses to accept black students
*An animal-loving town clerk who refuses to issue hunting licenses
*A pacifist working in a sporting goods store who refuses to sell archery equipment because it could be used as a weapon
*A gay town clerk, believing that his state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage is discriminatory, who refuses to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples
*The anti-tobacco convenience store clerk who refuses to sell cigarettes
81.
Paul in Minneapolis | July 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm
You get the idea. Allowing every employee and business owner to opt out based on their personal beliefs would result in utter chaos for all of us.
These business owners and employees do not have to condone the actions of their customers. Nor must they officiate at or attend a wedding; consume bacon, alcohol or birth control pills; hunt animals; shoot arrows from bows; approve of black or gay people; or smoke cigarettes. But if they operate or work for a public business, they must serve the public (all of it) and perform all duties required of the job.
Despite what NOM would have you believe, these business owners and employees are not the victims here (NOM is so very accomplished at reframing issues to cast its proponents as victims). The real victims are the people denied legal goods and services.
82.
Paul in Minneapolis | July 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm
No one is compelled to work in any particular profession. If one's conscience prevents him from serving the *entire* public, accommodating all patrons equally as required by law, and/or performing *all* duties required of the job, he should find another line of work. If one cannot reconcile her personal faith with the right of others to make different life choices, then she should not work in professions that require her to compromise her beliefs.
NOM, when you are refused service or public accommodation based on who you are, then come back and we'll talk. Until then, please spare us your incessant whining and unseemly victim mentality.
83.
Paul in Minneapolis | July 20, 2011 at 6:37 pm
I can't believe it took *FOUR* posts to get that all out here….
84.
Bryce | July 20, 2011 at 6:46 pm
I second Lora's guess. I think he lied.
85.
juliecason (JC) | July 20, 2011 at 7:46 pm
I'm with you, AnonyGrl. Generally, this kind of thing appalls me. But I not only giggled, I ordered a T-shirt, which I'm sure I won't have the nerve to wear outside of my house. I guess it was waking up to Maggie Gallagher on my morning NPR this morning: "It's not bigotry, it's common sense" she whined as I rubbed my eyes. Talk about getting up on the wrong side of the bed…. That had me buy one of these T-shirts!
86.
Gary | July 20, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Only a handful of states allow you to create a common law marriage, but once it’s created, every other state will recognize it – as long as it’s heterosexual. The reason for requiring an affidavit is to prove that the marriage existed – since there’s no license recorded at town hall (or wherever). The seven year thing is a myth – the affidavit may have stated it, but neither Kansas nor Oregon requires specifically seven years; it just bolsters their proof that the marriage existed.
I think the only state with an explicit requirement is NH, with 3 years, and even then, NH only recognizes common law marriage for the purpose of inheritance rights (and hence that type would not be recognized by other states as a marriage).
Just take the time to google it, and read the various sites.
87.
Sam_Handwich | July 21, 2011 at 3:58 am
You'll need to remove the parentheses for those links to work properly.
What always surprises me about the crosstabs in these polls is the strong support for SSM among roman Catholics. (56/38 in this poll). But i don't imagine Maggie Gallagher will ever run THAT headline.
88.
Sagesse | July 21, 2011 at 5:02 am
Hearing on repeal of DOMA: It’s not just the economy
http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/07/20/hearing…
"The hearing was covered live by C-SPAN and will be rebroadcast from time to time."
Unfortunately, I don't get C-SPAN. Still looking for the full video to watch.
89.
David Henderson | July 21, 2011 at 6:25 am
C-SPAN has the video (2 hours, 34 minutes):
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/RepealofD
90.
John_B_in_DC | July 21, 2011 at 6:30 am
And as usual their blog moderator refused to post the comment I submitted pointing this out to them. They don't want to hear the truth or the facts, and they want to make sure their supporters and readers don't hear them either.
91.
Greg | July 21, 2011 at 9:45 am
One would hope that their conscience would be far more intimidating than any supposed "threat".
92.
Fluffyskunk | July 21, 2011 at 11:12 am
Out of curiosity, has Sen. Leahy ever apologized for voting for DOMA in 1996?
93.
Eric | July 21, 2011 at 12:48 pm
State's do not have to recognize other state's marriages, if the marriage goes against the public policy of the state.
Here's are good write-up on the topic < ;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-barrington-wolff/doma-repeal-and-the-truth_b_905484.html>.
94. Nuclear Family « I &hellip | July 22, 2011 at 10:02 am
[...] of the hearing, but I didn’t read much after the hearing outside of a live blog on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker site by the Courage Campaign. It wasn’t until I received the daily email from the [...]
95.
Service Calculatoare Bucuresti Rapid ,Eficient Si Eftin | February 8, 2012 at 12:35 am
Pretty nice post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really loved surfing around your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I’m hoping you write once more very soon!
96. laptopuri second hand, la&hellip | May 28, 2012 at 5:44 am
laptopuri second hand, laptopuri second hand bucuresti, laptopuri second hand hp, laptopuri second hand dell, laptopuri second hand fujitsu siemens, laptopuri second hand acer…
[...]Prop 8 Trial Tracker » DOMA repeal: Live at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing[...]…
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.