H.R.3567 - Respect for Marriage Act of 2009

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Respect for Marriage Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Official: To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage. as introduced.

Comments Feed

  • LibertarianLady 09/17/2009 9:59am

    This is a step in the right direction to getting the government out of the marriage business and creating an incentive to marry via tax breaks.

    Nobody (straight, gay, or otherwise) should have to ask the government for permission to marry. If the activity requires a license is a privilege, not a right; That is the definition of a license.

    Nobody (straight couples included) should have to ask permission, pay for, wait for, and possible be denied the RIGHT to marry.

  • Comm_reply
    Andy_la_rue 09/21/2009 7:34am

    Spoken like a true libertarian. This bill is a good idea and a long overdue ‘tip-of-the-hat’ in the direction of human rights. It is nice to see in lieu of the neo-tea parties that there are still true libertarians who understand that rights are for everyone, and not just their select ‘click’.

  • Comm_reply
    JTaylor76 10/07/2009 7:17am

    I completely agree…I do not agree with Homosexuality, but No Government should be involved in telling us who we should or shouldn’t Marry…

    It’s time to tell Washington to BACK OFF

  • Comm_reply
    dankennedy73 09/22/2009 6:42pm

    I couldn’t agree more. It troubles me to know that all my years of service were to protect such a system which still denies certain rights to human beings because of their preffered unions.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    zoL 10/23/2009 10:14am

    It’s not tolerance. It’s you riding your high horse saying only YOU and your kind should have the right to marry. America doesn’t revolve around Christianity. Buddhism marry gays all the time. And guess what else? Those nasty socialist anti-American atheists also marry! If you don’t want gays to marry, make sure you also throw in you don’t want people of other religions who have differing opinions of marriage to marry either. You can claim tolerance all you want, but disregarding ignorance will never be respected as tolerance in the post-Constitution America.

  • Comm_reply
    nomadwolf 11/01/2009 7:05pm

    Think whatever you like, but if you think your “thought” should be the law of the land then you’re just intolerant of other people.

  • Comm_reply
    lightpond 11/05/2009 2:40pm

    I have been with my partner 27 years, hayes72. We finally married in California in October 2008, just before Proposition 8 took that right away. We have been in a de facto marriage for all these years, with all the joys and responsibilities and heartaches as you & yours. Only difference is, we had no legal protection.

    Have you been harmed in any way since October of 2008?

    Do I have a right to recover the lost tax breaks for the past 27 years?

    Should I be taxed to help pay for a government that denies me a fundamental right while guaranteeing you the same right?

    If you your spouse dies tomorrow, you will have a right to social security survivor benefits. We do not. Is that decent or fair?

  • Comm_reply
    dancrboi 03/03/2010 6:03pm

    i in no way hate you for having a different opinion… but i would like to know exactly how gay marriage would effect your life… i understand that you don’t agree with same-sex marriages.. my best advice is to not get one. Have a nice day (=

  • Comm_reply
    kmccauley 10/31/2009 10:22am

    LibertarianLady: I couldn’t have said it better myself. I would expand on this by saying that marriage is, despite what people may try to force down our throats, a religious institution.

  • Comm_reply
    krystaltgirl 11/02/2009 7:44am

    I too agree with LibertarianLady, but marriage has not historically been a religous institution, it has more often been a civil one and that was even true upon the founding of our colonies… look it up. Marriages historically have been arranged for either monitary gain, political status, and down right property rights.,.,. that’s a fact. A large part of the womens movement in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s centered on this..

  • rachtelles 09/19/2009 10:53am

    Why can’t the moral majority see this issue as a basic right and not a religious issue?? I should not need the USA governments permission to marry!

  • FallenMorgan 09/20/2009 10:54am

    It’s better than repealing it all together, and opening the door for federal legalization or banning of same-sex marriage. This is an issue for the states, and it’s good that our Congress might finally show some respect for that right.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    FallenMorgan 09/23/2009 6:56pm

    The Tenth Amendment says, roughly, that all powers not delegated to the federal government shall be delegated to the states, or to the people. What you seem to be implying is that the federal government should ban same-sex marriage, because a “majority” of people oppose it. We are a republic, not a populist democracy.

    The people of Vermont have the right to legalize same-sex marriage. The people of Arkansas have a right to ban it. By proportion, more states have same-sex marriage banned, but it is purely wrong to abuse the rights of those states that have legalized it.

    What ever happened to smaller government?

  • Comm_reply
    FallenMorgan 09/23/2009 6:58pm

    And in addition to that, the Defense of Marriage Act (and the Respect for Marriage Act) essentially nullifies the Full Faith and Credit clause, to prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages in other states. Bob Barr actually introduced it with the purpose of taking the momentum out of the movement for a federal ban.

  • Comm_reply
    epowersvt 02/26/2010 4:12am

    saint44: “… and to insure the peace and prosperity of all.” …? except me? I am married in my heart, and in Vermont. Can you articulate to me how my union has affected any one else’s peace or prosperity? I can tell you that my prosperity has been adversely affected due to the fact that I cannot take advantage of the tax laws that apply to my heterosexual friends and family. I can tell you that my wife cannnot be included on my health benefit plan because I work for my country. She has to spend an extraordinary amount of her otherwise disposable income on health insurance. I could go on, but quite frankly, whose prosperity is being affected?

  • NateR 09/22/2009 11:31pm

    It is the state that issues the license, not the federal government. The federal government provides over 1000 benefits for people in a registered union. Other countries have done it, and they have not fallen off the face of the earth yet.
    I don’t understand the previous post about humanity being “so sadly filled with hate that such unions will flourish.” I thought marriage was about love and affection, and to be celebrated. (Of course that is probably why I am single.)
    If you are claiming that natural law means one man and one woman be the definition of marriage, may I direct you to a 1999 study by Bruce Bagemihl, where homosexual behavior was observed in nearly 1500 differing species. Mother Nature doesn’t seem to mind.
    A marriage is a binding legal contract between two people who voluntarily enter into a union. A wedding is the religious service that takes place AFTER the legal aspect has been tended to.

  • AleneFree 10/01/2009 9:40am

    NateR, It IS a States Rights issue. Whenever the Feds tell the States they have to abide by a Federal Law that flies in the face of constitutionally supported/protected State law then States Rights are being violated. Any state that wants to support or recognize or legalize same-sex marriage has the constitutional right to do so. Any state that does not want to legalize or recognize same-sex marriage has the constitutional right to not do so. Oh, and by the way, our lawmakers and judges are bound by our Constitution not to base laws on the those of other countries.

  • leftypower 10/13/2009 10:31am

    The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states:
    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    This applies to my gay family – regardless of any state’s current political status.

  • krystaltgirl 10/23/2009 6:22pm

    I’m all for tolerance… I really feel any consenting adult should be able to enter into a marriage with another consenting adult. These one man one women people aren’t promoting democracy and our constitution, they really want a theocracy… sorry righties but your wrong!!!!

  • krystaltgirl 11/02/2009 7:51am

    And to that fact, the religous rights continued lies and propaganda around “one man one woman” is just that …LIES!! Doma is unconstitutional and any state attempts to prevent gay couples from entering into a marriage is pure and simple a clear violation of both civil rights and constitutional rights. Gay couples will and are going to be able to marry in every state and the gay community will never be quiet on civil rights until they are fully achieved…

  • lightpond 11/05/2009 2:54pm

    Those of you who believe gay marriage is wrong, or is a state issue, or that such contracts are no business of other states or of the federal government:

    If you are married in your home state, and go on vacation in another state, and one of you suffers an accident or illness, are you allowed to make medical decisions for your spouse if they cannot make their wishes known? If they die are you permitted to retrieve their remains? What if you move to another state? Are you considered married in every other state in the union? Would you find it burdensome to limit your life activities to only those states that recognize your marriage? The list goes on and on.

    One last question – what if the tables were turned, and it was only gays who were permitted to marry, and you had to petition for your rights in court?

  • Comm_reply
    FallenMorgan 11/06/2009 4:00pm

    That’s supposed to be what the Full Faith and Credit clause is for. But some people can’t stand the fact that their state has to gasp recognize same-sex marriages of other states.

  • janeeny 12/17/2009 10:00am

    There is no rational or logical reason to deny same sex couples the ability to marry.
    DOMA is unconstitutional, congress cannot make laws to circumvent the constitution (full faith and credit clause, 14th amendment)as they have done in this case. I cannot believe this law has stayed valid this long.
    Fallen Morgan, I love your comments.

  • applemanmatt 01/01/2010 1:40pm

    Personally I oppose gay marriage, but I support federalism and the right for some states to legalize or illegalize it. A gay couple should be able to have the same rights as any couple as long as the state that the couple lives in a state that has legalized it. Therefore, I support this bill, as long as it protects states’ rights.

  • kevinsmith1980 05/04/2010 5:29am

    It seems that this one will be buried too….. I guess Congress is too busy counting their money and elections to be concerned with Bills before them… even the ones who introduce them. LETS SEE SOME ACTION!

  • lego606 06/27/2011 2:37pm

    DOMA literally flies in the face of the Constitution. ROMA is… better.
    And I agree, the 14th Amendment says the same thing: YOU MUST GIVE EQUAL RIGHTS (basically).

    2 Amendments vs. 1 law. Anybody remember how the Constitution overrides all other laws?

Vote on This Bill

67% Users Support Bill

446 in favor / 217 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments