The Doma Difference

How much difference does it make anymore?

I'd like to know two things about these promises to repeal DOMA that I never see addressed.

1)  How would a President do this?  Would it require an act of Congress that a President would sign off on or is the repeal of all or part of a bill from over 10 years ago something a President can do autonomously?

2)  How much impact would the repeal of DOMA have on the country when over 40 states have passed their own DOMA - some more strict than others and some with amendments on top of the DOMA?  How many federal protections are prevented because of DOMA and how many protections would be extended in the absence of DOMA or would additonal legislation be required to extend anything to same sex couples/families?

My suspicion is that the talk of repealing DOMA is merely a ruse to make LGBTs feel they can support a Democrat for President even when those candidates don't take any postitive action to enact equality or to encourage states to cease their bigoted actions against our families.  

It's real easy to promise something that sounds like progress when in reality it changes nothing - or next to nothing.  Crumbs.  Crumbs of change.  

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:34:36 PM CST

Constitutionality

The issue is the constitutionality of the section regarding the states, and whether Congress can legislate away full faith & credit. Beyond that, the repeal of DOMA would make legal challenges to state laws somewhat easier. It would also remove one excuse that companies use to avoid recognizing even civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The only thing a president can do, besides speak from his/her "bully pulpit" in favor of repealing DOMA, and sign a full repeal if Congress delivers it to him/her.

Curently DOMA prohibits same-sex couples from having access to over 1,030 federal benefits and protections based on marital status. A full repeal of DOMA would eliminate the most significant legislative obstacle to obtaining those benefits.

I would prefer to have a president who supports full equality, and who will take positive action to get us close to equality.  Chances are slim that we'll get that in this election season. What I'm saying is that supporting a full repeal of DOMA, and promising to sign a full repeal, is the least we should be able to ask.

We should ask for much, much more too. Demand it, even.

TerranceDC
http://www.republicoft.com

---

by: TerranceDC @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:55:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for this post, Terrance

I really appreciate you putting this out there.  

DOMA does contradict the US Constitution and politicians are never asked to comment on that.  Yet, many LGBTs are lined up with their hands over their ears/eyes/mouth because they want a Democrat to win.  No amount of inadequate solutions and empty rhetoric would stop them from doing the lemming thing to the ballot box.

It's really disheartening and embarrassing.  

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 16:28:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"If no leading candidate is going to support marriage equality..."

then they do not deserve the mantle of being a "gay rights supporter."  You don't support a community while sitting silently by while that community is denied its civil rights. To me the leading candidates go one step further and actually hurt civil rights for gay Americans when they say they do not support our basic right to marry and agree that there is no civil rights issue in our being denied this right.  By being against marriage equality themselves, these candidates make it much easier for the party, the media, the voters and the nation to hold such bigoted views. The Supreme Court has recognized that condemned prisoners have the Constitutional right to marry. Why do Edwards, Clinton and Obama get a pass when they advocate that law-abiding gay Americans should have less than this? I agree with you that Obama and Edwards' positions on DOMA are better than Clinton's, especially since Clinton is running on "experience" that includes being part of the White House that signed on to DOMA in the first place. I have my doubts, however, that any of the "leading" candidates will expend any political capital for the gay community, especially on marriage, making the section 2 v. section 3 debate one of purely academic interest. I would love to be proven wrong.  

---

by: David Goroff @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:37:21 PM CST

Again...

Clinton and Obama are current members of the Senate.  They talk the talk but do not walk the walk.  If they wanted to show their support for the LGBT community there's one simple thing they could do.  Be the first to introduce a companion bill to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA) which would repeal "DADT."  They could also try to introduce a law to repeal DOMA.  Will they?  No.  It's all lipservice to get our money and our votes.  Sadly the two who seem to have America's collective backs are seen as "kooks" or "crazy" and are not rich or famous enough to have a voice in our supposedly objective media.

As a society we've turned the election process into a popularity vote for whoever we dislike and distrust the least.  Candidates no longer tell us what they'll do as President, but tell us what "negative" things the other candidates did, real or allegedly.  Finally it all boils down to money, who's got it and who don't.  Those that do can buy their air time on TV and generate non-news stories to get their name out there.  

I want my country back.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Daimeon @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 06:24:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Even a partial repeal of DOMA is progress.

By repealing the clause in DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same sex marriage the federal government will be forced to recognize same sex marriage on a federal level there by granting many federal rights to same sex couples, ie. immigration rights.  Since several other countries recognize same sex marriage this would alleviate a lot of troubles facing many same sex binational couples.

If the UAFA is not passed, a partial repeal of DOMA is the next best thing.

Though, I am slightly weary of the Clinton promises.  Lets not forget that it was Clinton that promised to allow gays to serve in the military.  From that we got DADT.  And lets not forget who signed DOMA into law.

I don't trust any politician with our rights, especially a Clinton.    

---

by: dstavro @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:53:45 PM CST

This is not true

"By repealing the clause in DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same sex marriage the federal government will be forced to recognize same sex marriage on a federal level there by granting many federal rights to same sex couples, ie. immigration rights"

In the first place, the federal gov't doesn't have a role in recognizing marriage.  There is no federal marriage license.  It is a state law that the Fed govt honors and adds to.  

The elimination of DOMA will not create any legislation that supports the citizenship of same sex couples nor will it extend immigration rights to anyone.  

The work of DOMA has been completed.  It gave the states the right to discriminate and ignore the full faith and credit clause until they could come up with their own legislation to do the same.  

Would the citizens in fewer than 10 states have the right to extend citizenship to their foreign same sex partner once DOMA is repealed?

Absolutley not.  

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:04:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

From what I was told by Immigration Equality

DOMA section 3 currently prohibits the federal government from recognizing same sex marriage.  In the past CIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services) has allowed immigration as long as the marriage was legal where it was issued.

Therefore, according to Immigration Equality and Freedom to Marry, if DOMA section 3 was repeal then CIS would not have legal grounds to deny immigration rights to a same sex binational couple who were married in say Canada.

---

by: dstavro @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:18:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

must be more complicated

They would know better than I would, but that explanation is preceisely why section 3 won't be repealed.

Besides, if these foreign created marriages between same sex couples came to the US they would only be able to live in a handful of states or they would be faced with living in a hostile state, filing a lawsuit, and waiting years for a judge to determine the legitimacy.

I still don't know if it is within the powers of a president alone to take the action of repealing all or part of an act passed/signed by a previous administration.

At the very least, the candidates should be pressed to explain how they will fulfill this promise instead of being let off the hook...and that never seems to happen.

Haven't we figured out by now not to take the words of a politican at face value?  How stupid are the unquestioning LGBT Democrats??    

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:43:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is Federalism.

While Obama and Edwards both favor a full repeal of DOMA, Hillary's partial repeal of DOMA does in fact include section 3.  Hillary opposes repealing section 2, which would require other states to recognize same sex marriages performed out of that state.

On the immigration issue, since immigration and citizenship is a federal issue the state has nothing to do with it.  Therefore, a same sex binational couple who are married in, say, Canada would still be able to live anywhere in the US if DOMA section 3 is repealed.  So even though the out of country marriage will not be recognized my most states, the same sex binational couple will still have the immigration rights from the federal government.  Yet, even though this is a potential possibility, the reality is that most same sex binational couples are not privileged enough to have the "Canadian option".  For this reason same sex binational couples direly need legislation such as the UAFA (Uniting American Families Act).

---

by: dstavro @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 16:23:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What We Need from Our Nominee

Terrance makes an incredibly important point here for LGBT voters to consider.  And I would like to take it one step further.

Ideally, our Democratic nominee for President in 2008 would support marriage equality.  We know now that this is not a possibility.  But, we must have some benchmarks as a community for progress in 2008.

In 2004, we had a nominee in John Kerry who was the most pro-gay nominee ever.  He supported civil unions, extending the rights,responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples in committed relationships and nearly every piece of pro-LGBT legislation; one of the first pieces of legislation he worked on in his first term as U.S. Senator involved amending existing civil rights laws to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination; he voted
against DOMA as a U.S. Senator and pledged to work with Congress to repeal it (and DADT) as our President; and he testified against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a Senator and a Vietnam veteran.  Then, he came out in support of an anti-gay amendment in his home state of Massachusetts.  Not only did this have the effect of disenfranchising
LGBT voters who might have otherwise turned out for Kerry, but it also sent a signal to Democrats at the national, state and local level that it was okay for them to support anti-gay amendments in their own states.  As a result, Democratic officials in states where these measures were on the ballot on 2004 did (with some exceptions) almost
nothing to work with coalition partners to defeat them.  

And, as we all know, every single anti-gay measure on the ballot passed in 2004--a huge setback for our community from which we are still recovering.

Since we will not have a nominee in 2008 who supports marriage equality, what kind of difference between Kerry and this nominee on our issues will constitute progress?

OPPOSE ANTI-GAY STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

This is the difference.  Our nominee must oppose all anti-gay state constitutional amendments.  And it will be consistent for our nominee to oppose marriage equality, and still oppose these amendments.  For if our nominee supports civil unions, domestic partnership benefits/
registries, and the right of state and local actors to extend the rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples in committed relationships, then our nominee should oppose amendments that would prohibit state and local actors from acting to protect our families AND would have the effect of nullifying those protections state and local actors have already put into place.

For those individuals who have access to candidates and their decision-makers, taking this position also makes sense from a politically pragmatic point of view.  Citizens who vote based primarily on their opposition to gay rights are almost never going to vote for Democratic candidates--especially our pro-gay Democratic nominee for President. If what motivates these citizens to vote is their opposition to gay rights--guess what--they are not going to be in our universe of "persuadable" voters.  The Democratic Party is the party of gay rights.  So, if our nominee comes out against anti-gay state constitutional amendments, it is not only a position consistent with the rest of their LGBT platform, it will serve to energize and motivate LGBT and allied voters to turn out for that nominee and all
of the down ballot candidates.  Based on my experience, I do not believe that our nominee would lose votes as a result of taking this position because citizens who vote based on how vigorously a candidate opposes gay rights was probably not going to vote for our pro-gay nominee in the first place.

SUPPORT REPEALING ALL OF DOMA

Terrance makes an incredibly important point here.  If our nominee is not going to support marriage equality, he or she should at the very least support everything Kerry did in 2004 (with the exception of state anti-gay amendments) and repealing ALL of DOMA.  As Terrance points out, both Obama and Edwards support repealing ALL of DOMA,while Clinton supports repealing only the section of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages between
members of the same-sex, but not the section that says that states don't have to recognize (for example) same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts.

Both Edwards and Obama made progress on DOMA and I think Clinton--since she may be our nominee--should do the same and do it soon.  In the last cycle, Edwards indicated in a debate that he would have voted against DOMA if he was in the Senate at that time.  Later on a Sunday talk show, he took the position Clinton now has (supporting only
partial repeal of DOMA).  After the 2004 Presidential Election, Edwards' gay supporters, friends and staff talked to him about DOMA and made clear why it was important for him as a candidate in 2008 to be in support of fully repealing DOMA.  And from day one of his
campaign and as is stated publicly on the LGBT issues page on his website (and a point he reiterated several times while campaigning in Iowa before straight audiences), he supports fully repealing DOMA.

Obama has also made progress on DOMA.  In two separate candidate questionnaires as an U.S. Senate candidate in 2003, Obama answered that he did not support efforts to repeal DOMA.  Then, in early 2004, Obama issued a letter to the Chicago mainstream media that, after reviewing the issue, he supported repealing ALL of DOMA.  His
spokesperson, Bill Burton, explained the change further:

"He felt it was a poorly conceived law and, in 2004, after hearing from gay friends who relayed to Obama how hurtful it was for the bill to be law, he supported its repeal."

 He has held this position consistently throughout his presidential candidacy.

Hillary has also made progress.  She used to support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and DOMA.  Now she has pledged to work with Congress to repeal DADT (a position she took in 1999 while her husband was still in office) and supports a partial repeal of DOMA.

However, in order for her to be a candidate that our entire community can unite behind--we need for her to meet the very reasonable benchmarks of progress set out earlier.  She must support repealing ALL of DOMA and oppose anti-gay state constitutional amendments (like the one that will be on the ballot in Florida in November).  The same is true for Obama and Edwards--they both support repealing DOMA--but they must also come out against anti-gay state constitutional amendments as well.

As I stated in an earlier post (in response to Karen Ocamb's piece on The Bilerco Project), it is clear that some of our community's best and brightest and most accomplished operatives are volunteers or staff on all of the major presidential campaigns.  

Our community now looks to those folks who are behind the scenes on all three of the campaigns to hold our eventual nominee accountable so that we can all unite behind her or him and propel her or him to the White House.

Eric J. Stern  

---

by: ericstern75 @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 17:40:57 PM CST

Our nominee must oppose all anti-gay state constitutional amendments...

   and without it, state constitutional marriage amendments will remain the same in these states in support of their ill contrived religious based affront, which could and would infect other areas, (and other states) of the states right to discriminate based on the same religious foundation, belief or concept, in direct conflict of Separation of Church and State and will send a message of complicity, eroding federal civil rights protections and Federal authority. This same strategy was attempted during the civil rights era with bible thumpers and those rampant with the ignorance of fear oft quoting the passage in Genesis about Ham, to support discrimination against people of color based on a religious.

   The message must needs to be sent, a decree, that the constitution is based on the civil rights that all men are created equal and not on any religious conceived notations or on the moral terpitude of any one group, without the regard to a majority quorum, as is what happens when the states put it to ballot. This must be mandated by the Federal Government, or they stand and allow civil rights protections to be eroded by the states and a majority vote, weakening civil rights and the validity of constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

   The "majority" were the oppressors of people of color prior to the Federal mandate with the 1964 civil rights act, and these political strategies using a "majority of the people vote" must be ended by a Federal mandate. It is wrong for a majority of people to discriminate against a few.

   And the Federal government needs to outlaw discrimination based on what people do within the privacy of their homes, who they love, who they sleep with, and any madate on their behaviors within the confines of civility towards others.

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 06:55:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Massachusetts

Would getting nationally recognized civil unions be easier if Massachusetts only had civil unions, too?  After all, currently Massachusetts same-sex marriages are considered civil unions if the couple moves to New Hampshire, and presumably NH civil unions are treated as marriages if the couple moves here.  So that sort of proves that they are the same thing.  What if Mass took a step back to join the other states with CU's, would that help with the federal recognition?

Also, there are probably some companies that don't recognize same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, though those lawsuits probably go forward.  The reason they haven't put any of those NJ lawsuits forward is because they might just win (and they probably would win), and Garden State Equality still wants to push for marriage rather than achieve equal protections.  It's pretty crappy that they haven't pursued justice for those couples.

---

by: Locke @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 20:52:31 PM CST

No

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 22:16:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Then why didn't NH pass SSM?

Why are most states only able to pass CU's, if they are able to pass anything at all?  Do you approve of those states "settling" for CU's?  Most people feel they are major victories and give couples very important protections, indeed the same benefits that marriage does - no federal protection and no international protection and only the designation by other states that the other states decide to give them.  There is no advantage of a Massachusetts marriage over any state's CU, except the artificial ones that groups like Garden State Equality are choosing to impose on CU'd couples by not pursuing the law's potential.

If those other states can't pass marriage but can pass CU's then it follows that marriage is still too much, and that the Massachusetts marriages are threatening too many other states, none of which want to recognize same-sex marriage.  If Massachusetts went back to CU's, which it could do and still comply by the MSJC ruling on that question, then no state would be threatening to impose SSM on another state and that would make it easier to get federal recognition through Congress (which is made up of reps from NJ, NH, etc, as well as all the very anti-SSM states, not MSJC judges).

---

by: Locke @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 22:51:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mountain Climbing,

  One out of 50 states have climbed the mountain.  Many states have chained the climber to the base of the mountain.
Each time someone tries to climb, they will meet obsticals, and thus dictating how far they can climb.

 In my view, if a state passes a CU policy, breakout the champaign.  If a state passes an ENDA, breakout the champaign.  Hate Crimes passes, Champaign time too.

 But CUs and DPs are far from Marriage.  So asking Mass to slide down the mountain would be foolish as CUs and DPs are bargins reached between the LGBT and Religious Whackos.

 The success of Massachusetts and with what has happened in that state regarding marriage speaks volumns. Non of the doom and gloom that the 'Save Marriage Junkies" said happened.  It is a working model of what can be nationwide.

 When it comes to SSM and mountain climbing.  Both sides want to review how Massachusetts made it to the top.  One side wants to review so they can duplicate it, the other on how to make sure the climber never gets to the top.

  The removal of Doma would basicly allow the states that settled for CUs will jump to Marriage, and it will spread like wildfire.

 Those that don't believe that Marriage Ewuality is the final goal, will look for half and settle for half. I would like to remind you, the other side gave half because half is easy to take away.  

 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 03:25:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

they're the same

But CUs and DPs are far from Marriage.

But they aren't far from same-sex marriage, which is really offensive to marriage but the way it is:  Same-sex marriage is far from marriage, and it's just like CU's: no federal recognition, other states and countries them ignore or call it a different name.

I think you're not addressing the suggestion that it would be easier to get CU's to be like marriage than it would be to get same-sex marriage to be like marriage, and the proof of that is that only a few states have even been able to pass CU's, so they aren't about to accept SSM being forced on them.  Are you considering the question at all, or just reiterating that marriage is the goal?  Perhaps uniformity and equal protections for more couples should be the immediate goal, rather than unequal marriage in one state that scares other states into FMA's and DOMA's.  

---

by: Locke @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 04:37:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

to clarify something...

the thing that is offensive to marriage is that Massachusetts marriages are not treated as marriages by other states and the federal government.  Not that there are same-sex marriages, which is how that might seem to read, but that there is DOMA, and states can ignore another state's marriage.  That's offensive to marriage.

---

by: Locke @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:06:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Does the illogic flow in both directions?

If it makes sense that MA should switch to CUs out of some misguided attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, then shouldn't the pushers of state amendments do the same?

Why should they be allowed to enforce increasingly strict legislation and amendments that target same sex families when it is redundant (DOMA in place already, no law on the books that would construe same sex couple legitimacy, and none planned that would come close to passing) and uncalled for?

People opposed to marriage equality should not be given more credence than people that believe in it.

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:17:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

asking Mass to slide down the mountain would be foolish,...

   and almost an "agreement" in a contractural discussion, becoming self defeating, or to put it bluntly will "put the last nail in the coffin". You don't win by making concessions. If you give up that foot in the door, that door will close never to open again and that, "with your agreement", which is tantamount to a contractural agreement, giving the nod to your opponent. A state next door needs to align with Mass. and if NJ could pull it off, which now is a good time with the tide running as it is, it would shore up what progress has been made in Mass, and subtantuate marriage equality for other states to align.   

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:46:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That is my point,

  The same as Loving vs VA, It took what was doing what was right by other states before the stupidity stopped.  The right has been trying to figure out how SSM survived in Mass. so they could change the attack in other states. All one has to do is look at the Flor-DUH wind-up to ban SSM.  

 They didn't play with the touchy feely BS, Mass went straight for the heart of the matter.  The truth wins.  Another thing to look at is how unclued Peter LeBarbera and Amy Contrada got.

 The religious right focuses on the icky thoughts of same sex Period. They can't go to any other part of a Same Sex relationship.  The loving two people can have? they lose as LOVE has no boundries.  Mike Gravel and Dennis Kuchinich know this fact.  But the rest of the Dems feel they have to playcate the Voters. And this is where the Democratic Candidates screw up.  The Voters want the truth IMHO.

 As well IMHO, Look at the response the Hucker got from the right on his changing the constitution to reflect the living god.  Please keep that thought in mind and read this question

Why should two American Citizens of the Same Sex who LOVE each other be denied the legal bennifits of Marriage?

 I am sure you know the Fundie answer, Because the bible says it is a sin. But the not so Fundie person will think the pipe fitting BS.  

 It is an easy win if the TRUTH would actually be debated.

 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:18:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

To deny us Sanctity? So right HappyCat, Nothing less than full marriage equality...

   This is an attempt to gain control over the homosexual communty. a power struggle of political control, an attempt to hold us hostage on the grounds of sin by the religious fundalmentalists and if we allow this to happen, we will never gain another inch and risk being locked under their control on most other things, we will be beholding to them. It's a political fight using the church against us. Back to the Darek Ages.

   We must have equality. A civil marriage is nothing but a legal union and denial of marriage rights is a denial of sanctity on religious grounds. People deserve to have their marriage sanctified. There are many LGBT persons who want their marriage to be sanctified by the church no less, and why should we settle for less?It is as equal as that of any hetersexual. Fundalmentalist want to deny us Sanctity because they are afraid that homosexuality is a choice, and that they're children may "decide" to accept being gay. It is this that they are fighting in the political arena so hard, which is foolishness, as foolish as it is to say that it is a parents fault that their children turned out the way they did, murders, rapists, drug addicts, a whore, gay, transsexual, done had three spouses and has six children, two of whom we don't know the fathers, etc., etc., etc., etc. And as everybody knows, including the fundalmentalists, nothing could be further from the truth.

   The Sanctity of marriage within heterosexulity is no more sanctified than that are homosexual. The sanctity comes when two people love each other, and live their lives as one, not in sexual preference, or all the heterosexual marriages would still be intact.

   For the politicalist who wish to outlaw sanctity of marriage for homosexuals is nothing more than discrimiination and cannot be allowed in this country under our present constitution. That Huck would even mention to change the constitution of the United States is subversion of the sovernty of our nation. We cannot accept anything less than equal rights in marriage, and the church needs to stop this evil discrimiination of the LGBT communtity.

   I hope to God we don't have a government with an agenda to regulate sin! It will be back to the Dark Ages for out nation.

I'd rather be a lion for one day, than a sheep for my entire life.

---

by: PhyllisMs @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:23:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

try this

so far i'm convinced that the only way to get a pro-marriage person into the white house from the top 3 is to vote for edwards. at least his wife and daughter have spoken in favor of equal marriage.

also i think that the chance of a bill being introduced and passed through congress to repeal doma is slim to none. and i'm sure that all three would sign it, regardless of the extent of the repeal. i feel pessimistically about this, because we have yet to see a state attempt a serious repeal of their doma. its unchartered territory. i think the testing ground should be in washington state. the just passed an anti-discrimination law (trans inclusive) and a domestic partnership law within the past 2 years. The state doma is not a constitutional amendment, it was pushed through by republican-controlled state legislature not a referendum. to my recollection there has never been any public vote on a doma or a constitutional amendment there. the supreme court there upheld the doma but was very split. the governor seems willing to sign a repeal. and its a border state with canada. it seems ripe for a challenge.

---

by: blehpunk @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:15:02 AM CST