Clinton, Obama, other Dems. favor repealing part of DOMA

By staff - Jun 4, 2007 - 1

The major Democratic candidates for president believe the federal government should recognize state-level “gay marriages” — a position that would require repealing a section of the Defense of Marriage Act, according to a questionnaire the candidates filled out for the Human Rights Campaign.

U.S. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards and four other Democratic candidates all favor repealing Section 3 of DOMA and having the federal government grant the federal legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples on the state level who are “married,” such as those in Massachusetts. As it stands now under DOMA, the federal government does not recognize such “marriages.”

The survey by HRC, the nation’s largest homosexual activist organization, found nearly unanimous views on 15 homosexual issues by the Democratic candidates. Also favoring federal recognition of state-level “gay marriages” are U.S. Sens. Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Former U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel did not respond to the survey.

All seven Democrats who responded also support civil unions for same-sex couples, and all seven favor overturning the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which prevents homosexuals from serving openly. The only question in the survey that lacked unanimity was the one on “gay marriage.” Kucinich was the only one supporting its legalization.

“It is extremely encouraging to finally see the focus of the debate around the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans center around extending the American value of equality to all people,” HRC President Joe Solmonese said in a statement. “2008 is not 2004, and the American people have already put out the warning that divisive, wedge politics that pit neighbor against neighbor will not be tolerated.”

The other sections of DOMA give states the option of not recognizing another state’s “gay marriages.” Although the survey did not address that portion of the law, at least two of the candidates — Obama and Kucinich — have said in the past they support repealing DOMA in its entirety. That presumably could force all the states to recognize “gay marriage.”

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. Solmonese called the candidates’ positions on DOMA in the questionnaire “groundbreaking.”

According to the questionnaire, the seven candidates also support:

  • passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in the workplace.
  • passage of a federal hate crimes bill that would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the current law.
  • extending federal benefits to same-sex couples and their children “provided the partnership meets certain federal standards of commitment and mutuality of interest.”
  • expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to include homosexual couples.
  • paying survivor benefits to partners of homosexuals.
  • treating same-sex couples, under tax laws, the same as married couples.
  • giving domestic partner benefits to federal homosexual employees.
  • allowing same-sex couples to adopt. The candidates said they oppose laws that ban it.
  • passage of the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow a homosexual U.S. citizen to petition for immigration sponsorship for a same-sex partner.
  • funding for the Ryan White Care Act and increased funding for HIV/AIDS research.
  • passage of the Responsible Education About Life Act, which would provide federal money to schools to teach about premarital sex and contraceptives and, presumably, homosexuality.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Social Issues

1 comments (post your own) feed

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com