BTW: Harry Reid is from Nevada, which has plenty of Mormons, too, but also alot of gamblers. But Harry isn’t taking any particular gamble by supporting repeal of DADT. Support for the repeal is now widespread and utterly defensible for national security reasons, well apart from any notions of justice, equality or fairness. So even though he faces a tough re-election battle next year he is supporting repeal. That says something about the political prospects for success of the repeal effort.

You’re pushing not just for a repeal of DOMA (which requires the *federal* government to ignore SSMs that were legal in the states where they were performed); you want to go further, to having the federal government *force* states to recognize marriages that would not be legal if performed in that state. Where has Obama endorsed that? That’s the part I’m calling DOA. I very clearly stated, repeatedly, that simply having the federal government recognize valid SSMs would fit with legal tradition and shouldn’t be a problem, whereas forcing states to recognize SSMs breaks with tradition and would be difficult. I’m not sure why you’re trying to sow confusion over this. The distinction between federal and state recognition is a significant one that has been discussed on this blog many times.

The idea that Congress spends its time fretting about the outcomes of lawsuits is ludicrous. The Supreme Court has been overturning Congressional legislation over and over for the last couple of decades. The Court’s finding in Lopez that there had to be some link to commerce in order for Congress to exercise its interstate commerce powers didn’t stop Congress from passing a Violence Against Women Act. In particular, Congress does not go around withdrawing prior legislation that has been in effect for years if it looks like the Court might eventually find it unconstitutional. You’re making assumptions about the legislative mind with no evidence to back it up.

Compare the backing for a repeal of DADT (support from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of *Utah*) with the backing for forcing states to recognize out-of-state marriages that are otherwise invalid in that state (can’t even get Barney Frank).

I’d barely call 50 co-signers on repeal of DOMA DOA. The President has called it discriminatory on more than one occasion in public. Furthermore, it increasingly appears that at least some parts of DOMA likely will be declared unconstitutional, and it would be best if lawmakers (many of the reluctant supporters are still in office) repealed it before that happens so they don’t look like discriminatory bigots when multiple judges start issuing tersely worded opinions.

The public polling on DADT is completely irrelevant. The powers that be in the military are fighting the repeal of DADT with every ounce of energy that they have. Furthermore, it is un-touchable via lawsuit, so there is no downside for senators.

The point of repealing DOMA is to treat SSM like any other kind of marriage we’ve seen where some states recognized it and some states don’t. In 1965, Virginia didn’t recognize interracial marriages; D.C. did. Today, Texas doesn’t recognize first-cousin marriages; Vermont does. Prior to DOMA, the tradition always was that the states were free to recognize only those marriages that would have been legal if contracted within the state, but the federal government recognized any marriage that a state recognized. (E.g., the federal government has always recognized interracial and first-cousin marriages, even when many individual states don’t, so long as some states do.)

DOMA broke that tradition by saying the federal government specifically wouldn’t recognize SSM even where legal in some states, thus treating SSM differently than all other “variant” kinds of marriage (such as interracial or of first cousins). Getting rid of that discrimination is both the strongest legal argument for repeal (since even conservatives have to admit that DOMA breaks with tradition) and gets rid of the legal messes created by having a marriage recognized at the state level but not the federal level.

It makes sense to start a bill with what you want, knowing you are going to have to concede some items eventually. Frank should be supporting this bill as written, with the knowledge that at will be negotiated. It makes no sense to introduce a half hearted piece of legislation.

Not if the bill you start with scares off so many people that it’s DOA. Forcing the federal government to recognize SSMs from Mass., VT, NH, Maine et al. is perfectly compliant with U.S. legal tradition. In contrast, forcing a state to recognize an out-of-state marriage that can’t legally be performed within that state is a huge break from legal tradition. Until we get the SSM equivalent of Loving — declaring SSM a constitutional right that must be not only recognized but performed in all 50 states — it’s legally dubious to force a state to recognize those out-of-state marriages. Without the constitutional holding, why should SSM be treated differently than other variant marriages have been?

A full or partial repeal of DOMA is more likely to happen faster than a repeal of DADT as they know that the legal cases are moving quickly and are likely to result in wins for LGBT (and embarassement foregislators). They can and will continue to fend off DADT lawsuits under the guise of “national security” for years, if not decades.

Have you not looked at the polling on these issues? There is majority support for allowing states to decide whether or not they will recognize SSM, whereas there is *not* majority support for DADT. In all polls taken in the last couple of years, a majority of Americans have said that gays should be allowed to serve in the military. When you’re looking at federal legislation, what a majority of Americans want makes a difference. We’re going to have gays serving openly in the military before we have every state recognizing SSM.

A full or partial repeal of DOMA is more likely to happen faster than a repeal of DADT as they know that the legal cases are moving quickly and are likely to result in wins for LGBT (and embarassement foregislators). They can and will continue to fend off DADT lawsuits under the guise of “national security” for years, if not decades.

Without that, what’s the point?