Today the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will begin debate on S598, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011. Sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the title of the bill is confusing. Using the word "respect" instead of "defense," it sounds very much like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). People might think it is something similar, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Respect for Marriage Act would actually overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.
S598 is supported by the ACLU and gay organizations. It is opposed by some Tea Party organizations, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is a member of the Judiciary Committee and a co-sponsor of the bill. In fact, all ten Democratic members of the committee support the bill, so even if all eight Republicans oppose it, it is sure to make it out of committee. Ironically, many of the 30 Senators co-sponsoring the bill voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
It is still important to call Senator Durbin to let him know how you stand on this bill. Please call our other Senator, Mark Kirk, and urge him to vote no on S598. Ask him to please continue to support the Defense of Marriage Act as passed in 1996.
Only 5 states permit same-sex marriage. In 30 states, such unions are constitutionally banned. In explaining her support of DOMA recently, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) noted that it "was enacted by Congress in order to protect individual states and their laws against same sex marriages."
While S598 is touted as ensuring "respect for State regulation of marriage," in reality it would do the opposite. Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy at the Family Research Council, says, "The bill would repeal both parts of the Defense of Marriage Act so that it would make it much easier to force other states to recognize same-sex marriage."
Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) in Washington, DC, testified before the Senate about this bill in July. He explained that "far from respecting marriage, S.598 would empty the term of any core content" and "would include anything that any state, now or in the future, recognized as marriage." He added that this would have the "real world consequences" of once again allowing polygamy. In the 19th Century, polygamy was recognized as being incompatible with democracy, and anti-polygamy provisions were a condition of statehood for Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Whelan added that Section 3 of the Respect for Marriage Act would require taxpayers in states that maintain traditional marriage laws to subsidize the provision of federal benefits to same-sex unions or polygamous marriages recognized by any other state.
Whelan also discussed President Obama's responsibility to defend DOMA under Article II of the Constitution. His refusal to uphold DOMA is not just breaking a campaign promise, it is also unconstitutional. Whelan stated that "an administration may not work to overturn a law merely because they disagree with it from a public policy perspective (i.e. ideology)."
To read the full comments of Edward Whelan as well as those of Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense fund and Tom Minnery of CitizenLink, CLICK HERE.
Contact information for Senators Durbin and Kirk is in the column on the left. You may also wish to register your opinion on this legislation at the following site: CLICK HERE 
Posts
9 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment