Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

John Kerry cosponsors proposed repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

MCT

A prominent lawmaker from Massachusetts, the first state to permit gay marriages, has introduced legislation aiming to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 statute which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

In a Wednesday message, Whitney Smith, a spokesperson for John Kerry, the fifth-term Senator from Massachusetts, said Kerry had cosponsored legislation that would “restore the rights of all lawfully married couples, including same-sex couples, to receive the benefits of marriage under federal law.”

Same-sex couples, even those recognized as legally married in their home states, are presently denied numerous federal marriage benefits, including social security protections.

The law both stipulates that states not recognizing the validity of same-sex unions are not required to recognize the legitimacy of couples married officially elsewhere and states that “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” According to Kerry’s statement, the senior senator was the only member of the senate running for reelection to vote against the bill.

In the statement, Kerry said he has believed DOMA to be unconstitutional since its inception, and that he will continue to work to see it repealed.

“DOMA was wrong and unconstitutional when I voted against it 15 years ago,” he said, “and it’s equally wrong and unconstitutional today.”

Kerry said he believes the bill hurts citizens and deprives some of basic rights.

“This discriminatory law treats loving, committed same-sex couples like second-class citizens by denying them thousands of federal benefits,” he said. “It’s overdue for Congress to ease the pain that Congress caused in the first place.”

The senator also said he believes the nation has shifted in its stance on same-sex marriage since the bill first passed.

“America has undergone a transformation on these issues since 1996, and the law should reflect the reality of where we are now as a country.”

Kerry and several of his colleagues in the Senate have proposed an alternate bill, the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), which would do away with DOMA and would provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples, though it would not require states to recognize same-sex marriages. RFMA would provide same-sex couples such benefits as Social Security survivors’ and spousal coverage, the right to care for spouses under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the ability to file joint tax returns, and full family benefits for federal civilian employees.

RFMA was introduced in the House by New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler in September 2009, and has made its way to the Senate, where it was introduced by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and is cosponsored by 18 other senators, including Kerry. The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is presently dominated by Democrats, including Chair Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Feinstein, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and former comedian turned lawmaker Al Franken of Minnesota.

Although the Republican-controlled House of Representatives may attempt to block the bill from going through, public opinion on homosexuality and gay marriage does seem to have changed since DOMA passed. An October Pew Research Center poll found that 42 percent of Americans favor same-sex marriage, while 48 percent oppose. The year before, just 37 percent favored while 54 percent opposed, marking the first time since the topic has been tracked that fewer than half the nation opposed same-sex marriage.

Last month, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement announcing that they would direct the Justice Department to no longer defend challenges to the bill, specifically its third section, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, calling it unconstitutional. Although the duo formally announced their opposition to the statute, it remains on the books, and while the administration will no longer defend the constitutionality of the law, Speaker of the House John Boehner, a Republican of Ohio, has announced his intentions to defend the third section, stating that courts, not politicians, should decide the bill’s constitutionality.

On March 9, he announced that “after consultation with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, the House General Counsel has been directed to initiate a legal defense of this law. This action will ensure that this law’s constitutionality is decided by the courts, rather than by the President unilaterally.”

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is a five-member board composed of the Speaker of the House (Boehner), the House Majority Leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy of California, the Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi of California and the Minority whip, Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland. The group directs the House General Counsel to take certain stances on representing Congress’ interests in legal matters. 

Sam Butterfield can be reached at [email protected].

View Comments (4)
More to Discover

Comments (4)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • R

    RisaJun 3, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    “Little Man”, you must have a little mind as well. The point is not to allow only small states the legal benefits of marriage but to open the doors to a federal legalization. The first step to this is to repeal the ban. And besides that, how are two friends of opposite sex getting married for the legal benefits any different than a same sex pair of friends? It is morally wrong to deny a legally married couple of the same sex the same rights as a heterosexual couple. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.” The votes are not “really against same-sex marriage”. It’s closed minded, selfish people like yourself who are voting against it– and you are quickly becoming the minority.

    Reply
  • L

    Little ManMar 23, 2011 at 12:54 am

    All these people complaining that they cannot have the same rights exclusive to motherhood – but many, many, many other people (like, for instance close friends) would also like to claim all these benefits and rights. How come no one else complains that they’ve had to pay taxes on an inheritance because they are just friends. How do we keep all kind of people (same-sex, blood related pairs, minors, just friends) from marrying in order to receive these benefits? Has anyone stopped to think that the USA government would have to pay out for all these benefits to extra couples? Why should the Federal money, collected from ALL States, be used for Federal benefits in the few tiny States that have same-gender civil marriage? That’s the financial problem that arose from calling every couple’s feelings and cohabitation – a “marriage” in these tiny States. It is not marriage in the full extent of the word, but politicians don’t study the economic effects – they just want votes. Well, the votes are really against same-gender marriages, if you take a poll correctly.

    Reply
  • A

    AabirMar 22, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    Eddy, you situation is sad. But I completely understand. I am an Indian national in a relationship with an American national. Although I shall fend for myself when it comes to visa etc., it would really be helpful to get legal recognition as well as federal benefits. It will make life a lot easier. So I can’t wait for DOMA to be tossed out.
    But I have something else to say to you as well other than supporting. India is a democratic country and the court also decriminalized the ‘anti-gay’ law. No one can force anyone to get married. My bf visited India with me, stayed at my parent’s place as my boyfriend and not pretending to be a friend. Its not that my mom and dad were fine with it from the beginning. But my sister is a big supporter and mom and dad learnt to deal with it. All because I realized its my life, so I need to grow a pair and stop people in intervening in my life. Your bf needs to do the same. Is he such back-boneless to be ‘forced to marry a girl”???? How can someone force an adult to get married in a democratic country? If he cant say no and just get his own life, then Im sorry, he deserves it. He need to snap out of it and move out of his parents house.

    Reply
  • E

    Eddy Silega CobasMar 22, 2011 at 6:26 am

    Bi-national couples like me USA Citizen and my life partner from India we are suffering because of DOMA it is time to repeal DOMA. I need to travel thousands of miles to be able to meet my Life partner, he is being forced by their parent to a traditional arranged marriage with a woman, he is suffering from discrimination and abused by his parents and his community for his refusal to marry a Woman, I as a USA citizen I can not sponsor him to come to USA through a fiancee Visa, we are waiting for the repeal of DOMA to be a able to live together in USA and to get legally marriage.

    Reply