DOMA Repeal Bill Coming Next Week

[JB3]

The house is never the problem, the Senate is.

 

[NickCole]

^^^

That's all well and good and we have or work cut out for us in the House.

There is no way the Senate is going to repeal DOMA. The 17 Blue Dogs are just never going to consider that as a possibility. I believe the best chance is to have it struck down in a court of law.

The Blue Dogs are in the House of Representatives. And the current Blue Dog coalition counts more than 50 in their ranks.

 

[NickCole]

I think Gillibrand (D-NY) is introducing a repeal in the Senate. I could be wrong. Whatever goes on in there is totally unknown to us except what is reported by insiders in the gay community. I am unaware of any progress at all, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. We probably won't see much. Gay marriage is still very much a partisan issue being advocated by the very left of the Democratic Party.

No, Gillibrand supports the repeal of DOMA but what she was trying to introduce was a repeal of DADT. After determining there wasn't sufficient support for that, however, she settled for a hearing on the issue by the Armed Services Committee this fall.

 

[NickCole]

Uh, it's a problem when the hypocritical, hyper-phony Republicans control the House. Or had you forgotten? As ebbybody know, all progress stops when Republicans are in charge of anything. You see, Republicans are anti-gay, or hadn't you noticed?

Well Democrats control the House and the Senate now. The White House too.

You think DOMA will be repealed?

 

[NickCole]

EVAN BAYH FORMING "BLUE DOG" CAUCUS IN THE SENATE

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/14/evan-bayh-forming-conserv_n_150874.html

Uh huh.

That's a nice article from December 2008 about something Evan Bayh wanted to do.

The Blue Dog Coalition, known as the Blue Dogs and often referred to in the current health care reform debate, is a group of Democrats in the House of Representatives.

 

[NickCole]

Quit being a jerk NickCole, you know that there is a conservative faction of Democrats who are also in the Senate and stand to oppose any chance of repeal of the DOMA.

Sure there are conservative Democrats in the Senate. But they are not Blue Dogs.

Knowing what I'm talking about doesn't make me a jerk.

 

[NickCole]

You are wrong, and then you ignored the proof.

Really?

You're saying some Senators are members of the Blue Dog Coalition, that when people refer to Blue Dogs they're referring to Senators?

 

[NickCole]

No. Not exclusively, duh. But yes there is a Blue Dog caucus in the Senate as well.

No there is not.

The Blue Dogs are a group of Democratic Representatives in the House.

That's a fact. That's who the Blue Dogs are.

You can't make something true just because you want it to be.


http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/

The Democratic Blue Dog Coalition is a group of currently 52 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives formed in 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

 

[JB3]

Uh, it's a problem when the hypocritical, hyper-phony Republicans control the House. Or had you forgotten? As ebbybody know, all progress stops when Republicans are in charge of anything. You see, Republicans are anti-gay, or hadn't you noticed?

How any gay man can affiliate with those freaks is beyond my understanding. Thankfully, only a handful do. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't agree with DOMA and I don't agree with Republican support for it. And had you forgotten that Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the President that signed it into law?

But let's be realistic; the repeal of DOMA will NOT pass the Senate. It should pass the House, but its easier to pass things there without moderate Democratic votes. No matter how much we WANT it to pass the senate, and no matter how much it should, the votes are just not there.

 

[hotatlboi]

No, Gillibrand supports the repeal of DOMA but what she was trying to introduce was a repeal of DADT. After determining there wasn't sufficient support for that, however, she settled for a hearing on the issue by the Armed Services Committee this fall.

How can there be insufficient support in the Senate to repeal DADT when 70% of the American people support it's repeal? Something doesn't add up there.

 

[JB3]

How can there be insufficient support in the Senate to repeal DADT when 70% of the American people support it's repeal? Something doesn't add up there.

Because its easier to say you support it in a phone poll than it is to support it by asking your representative and senator to vote for the repeal.

And DOMA is NOT DADT. Most Americans have no idea what DOMA is.

 

[NickCole]

There is no argument about the House. You are not teaching me anything new when you show me the Blue Dog Coalition in the House. I am talking about the Senate.

I already showed you an article covering the formation by Evan Bayh (D-IN) of a Blue Dog caucus in the Senate.

Nowhere in that article does it say Evan Bayh is forming a group in the Senate called the Blue Dogs.

 

[NickCole]

How can there be insufficient support in the Senate to repeal DADT when 70% of the American people support it's repeal? Something doesn't add up there.

The United States Senate is not designed to vote in tandem with what the American people support.

 

[JB3]

Been over this 100 times. He didn't have a choice because it would have become law anyway, and the smart thing to do for his political capital was to sign the damned thing.

Oh Bullshit. A man of principles stands by them, even if it might cost him later.

 

[NickCole]

Feast on the knowledge everyone else has.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=evan+bayh+blue+dog&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-p3

Yes I know how to google.

And if you read those articles you'll see "Blue Dog Senators" doesn't appear in the articles. That's because there is no such coalition.

Enjoy your ignorance.

 

[NickCole]

If what I have is what you call ignorance, then I am happy to have it. It's obvious to me what is going on is an insane defense of the indefensible. Google really is a sweet little tool:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=blue+dog+senators&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10


Handy dandy Guide to the 13 Bluedog Democratic Senators on Health Care:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8516732

I've seen that number put at 17... hmm it must be 13 anyway.

You seriously posted that link to back up your claim???

That link is to a thread on a forum just like this, and the thread title is what you're posting as support. Seriously???

So if some yahoo starts a thread titled Obama Not A US Citizen, that's proof that Obama's not a US citizen?

Honest to God!

 

[SonOfSlobone]

I'm sure everybody already knows this, but just a reminder: repealing the part of DOMA that allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states probably won't make any difference.

The reason is that the law will then revert to what it was before. Under the old law (as affirmed by Supreme Court decisions) states are not required to recognize marriages from other states if they conflict with the marriage laws in the first state.

For example, if New Hampshire allows 14-year olds to marry, New Jersey (which doesn't allow it) is not required to recognize those marriages. Or if New Jersey allows first cousins to marry, New Hampshire isn't required to recogize them.

The only restriction is that the state's marriage laws have to be a matter of "strong public policy", which means, I guess, they've been consistent in enforcing the law.

And since most states now have explicit laws or even constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, I don't think they'll have any problem demonstrating that it's against their strong public policy. Certainly not to this Supreme Court.

However, repeal could leave an opening for activist courts in some states. For example, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled that LA must recognize first-cousin marriages from other states, even though they're not allowed there. The reason is that the state has not shown it has a "strong public policy" against it.

So a court in a state that has no law banning same-sex marriages could possibly rule that marriages from other states must be recognized. I believe New Mexico and Rhode Island are the only states currently in that category.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is no way the Senate is going to repeal DOMA. The 17 Blue Dogs are just never going to consider that as a possibility. I believe the best chance is to have it struck down in a court of law.

I don't understand them. I can see their belief in small(er) government and fiscal responsibility, but what's with the reactionary streak?

How can there be insufficient support in the Senate to repeal DADT when 70% of the American people support it's repeal? Something doesn't add up there.

Because as Pelosi has demonstrated before, the Democrats aren't really democrats.

 

[scream4ever]

"So a court in a state that has no law banning same-sex marriages could possibly rule that marriages from other states must be recognized. I believe New Mexico and Rhode Island are the only states currently in that category."

New Jersey, New York, and all teritories other then Puerto Rico as well. Still though, it would be progress.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

"So a court in a state that has no law banning same-sex marriages could possibly rule that marriages from other states must be recognized. I believe New Mexico and Rhode Island are the only states currently in that category."

New Jersey, New York, and all teritories other then Puerto Rico as well. Still though, it would be progress.

That's right, I didn't include them because they already recognize same-sex marriages from other states.