The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. The right lambasts DOMA for subverting the political momentum for a constitutional amendment. In truth, the language of the legislation--like that of most federal laws--was a compromise. DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples.
I crafted the legislation so it wasn't a hammer the federal government could use to force states to recognize only unions between a man and a woman. Congress deliberately chose not to establish a single, nationwide definition of marriage.
In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.
|
The above quotations are from Media coverage of CA political races in The Los Angeles Times.
Click here for other excerpts from Media coverage of CA political races in The Los Angeles Times. Click here for other excerpts by Bob Barr. Click here for a profile of Bob Barr.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
| Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) |