Connect with us

Politics

No DOMA repeal bill until court decision

Log Cabin expects Portman to sign on as co-sponsor

Published

on

Rob Portman, United States Senate, Ohio, gay news, Washington Blade

Log Cabin Republicans is expecting Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to co-sponsor DOMA repeal (Photo public domain)

Lawmakers are holding off on introducing legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act until after the Supreme Court rules on the anti-gay law, according to multiple sources familiar with the bill, as one Republican LGBT organization expects Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to sign on as a co-sponsor.

A number of LGBT advocates familiar with the legislation, which has been known as the Respect for Marriage Act, told the Washington Blade its lead sponsors — Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in the House and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in the Senate — are delaying introduction until after the expected court ruling in June.

Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communications, said his organization supports the decision to postpone introduction of the bill until after a decision is reached in the DOMA case, known as Windsor v. United States.

“The lead sponsors of the RMA have decided to wait until after the court rules in Windsor,” Sainz said. “We support that decision and look forward to continuing to work with them to advance this important legislation.”

Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the ACLU, said his organization, which filed the lawsuit against DOMA, has a similar understanding that the lead sponsors won’t introduce the Respect for Marriage Act until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiff Edith Windsor’s challenge.

“The ACLU understands and respects that decision, and is committed to continuing to work with our sponsors in Congress and coalition partners to advance the Respect for Marriage Act and a full repeal of DOMA to ensure that the federal government recognizes and respects the marriages of same-sex couples across the nation,” Thompson said.

Still, the lawmakers are staying mum. Ilan Kayatsky, a Nadler spokesperson, said he had “no news to report yet” on the timing for the introduction of the DOMA repeal bill, and Feinstein’s office declined to comment.

In the event that the Supreme Court decides to uphold DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act would be the next approach to lifting the 1996 anti-gay law, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Moreover, as previously reported by the Blade, legislation still may be necessary if DOMA is overturned to clear up lingering inequities for married same-sex couples, such as in situations where they move from one state that recognizes their union to another that doesn’t.

Previous versions of the bill had a “certainty provision” spelling out that federal benefits would continue to flow to married gay couples — even if they live in a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

David Codell, legal director at the Williams Institute of the University of California, Los Angeles, explained that the Respect for Marriage Act “would serve important purposes” even if the Supreme Court were to strike down the ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

“The Respect for Marriage Act would make clear that the federal government would treat as valid for federal purposes all marriages of same-sex couples in the United States if the marriages were valid where entered — regardless of whether a couple currently lives in a state that permits same-sex couples to marry or recognizes such marriages,” Codell said. “The Act would mean that a validly married same-sex couple could move anywhere in the country without losing federal benefits tied to marriage.”

As they await introduction of a bill, LGBT advocates say they’re continuing to work to bring on additional co-sponsors for the bill, which closed the 112th Congress with 161 co-sponsors in the House and 32 co-sponsors in the Senate. That effort was highlighted by Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.

“Freedom to Marry’s focus right now is on continuing to add co-sponsors as we prepare to introduce the bill with the strongest momentum possible when ready to move forward,” Wolfson said.

While the House bill had Republican co-sponsors in the 112th Congress — Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Rep. Richard Hanna (D-N.Y.) and former Rep. Charlie Bass (R-N.H.) — the Senate version of the bill has never had GOP support. Even Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who’s considered an LGBT advocate and champion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, wasn’t a co-sponsor.

But the Log Cabin Republicans say that will change. Gregory Angelo, the organization’s executive director, said he expects Portman — who came out in favor of marriage equality after he learned his son is gay — to be among the sponsors of the DOMA repeal.

“Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Congressman Richard Hanna were Republican co-sponsors in the 112th Congress, and we have every expectation they will continue as co-sponsors when the bill is reintroduced,” Angelo said. “Given his recent evolution on marriage equality, we expect Republican Senator Portman to be a co-sponsor in the Senate.”

Angelo later clarified that he’s had no assurances from Portman that he’ll be a sponsor, but was basing his assessment on the senator’s past statements in favor of same-sex marriage.

Portman’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on whether he’ll sign on as co-sponsor to the Respect for Marriage Act. According to a Cleveland Plain Dealer article at the time Portman came out for marriage equality, Portman told reporters he believes legally married gay couples should receive the federal benefits of marriage, but the report doesn’t quote him as saying he’ll sign on as a sponsor to DOMA repeal legislation per se.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage

Roughly 1.8 million LGBTQ Americans rely on Medicaid

Published

on

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The “Big, Beautiful Bill” heads to President Donald Trump’s desk following the vote by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday, which saw two nays from GOP members and unified opposition from the entire Democratic caucus.

To partially offset the cost of tax breaks that disproportionately favor the wealthy, the bill contains massive cuts to Medicaid and social safety net programs like food assistance for the poor while adding a projected $3.3 billion to the deficit.

Policy wise, the signature legislation of Trump’s second term rolls back clean energy tax credits passed under the Biden-Harris administration while beefing up funding for defense and border security.

Roughly 13 percent of LGBTQ adults in the U.S., about 1.8 million people, rely on Medicaid as their primary health insurer, compared to seven percent of non-LGBTQ adults, according to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute think tank on sexual orientation and gender identities.

In total, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts will cause more than 10 million Americans to lose their coverage under Medicaid and anywhere from three to five million to lose their care under Affordable Care Act marketplace plans.

A number of Republicans in the House and Senate opposed the bill reasoning that they might face political consequences for taking away access to healthcare for, particularly, low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid. Poorer voters flocked to Trump in last year’s presidential election, exit polls show.

A provision that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation — reportedly after the first trans member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and the first lesbian U.S. senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), shored up unified opposition to the proposal among Congressional Democrats.

Continue Reading

Congress

Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor

One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”

Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.

Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.

To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.

A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).

Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”

Continue Reading

Congress

House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms

Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move

Published

on

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.

Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.

The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).

The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”

“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.

They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”

“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.

Continue Reading

Popular