Browse By

LGBT Equality Caucus Members Who Don't Support DOMA Repeal

Earlier this week, Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced H.R. 3567, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009. This bill, if passed, would repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), a piece of legislation enacted in the 1990s revoking the presumption that same-sex marriages carried out in one state would be recognized in other states or by the federal government. Under the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution, opposite-sex marriages still do carry this presumption of recognition, creating 14th Amendment difficulties of unequal protection under law. H.R. 3567 would resolve unequal protection by granting the presumption of recognition for all marriages at the federal and state level.

80 members of the House of Representatives are current members of the House LGBT Equality Caucus. Within this group, support for DOMA repeal is not unanimous. The following are members of the LGBT Equality Caucus who have not added their cosponsorship to Nadler’s bill:

Rep. Timothy Bishop. Contact Phone: 631-696-6500
Rep. Andre Carson. Contact Phone: 317-283-6516
Rep. Joseph Crowley. Contact Phone: 718-320-2314
Rep. Peter DeFazio. Contact Phone: 541-440-3523
Rep. Barney Frank. Contact Phone: 508-999-6462
Rep. Charles Gonzalez. Contact Phone: 210-472-6195
Rep. Phil Hare. Contact Phone: 309-793-5760
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee. Contact Phone: 713-227-7740
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. Contact Phone: 214-922-8885
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. Contact Phone: 516-739-3008
Rep. Patrick Murphy. Contact Phone: 215-826-1963
Rep. Bill Pascrell. Contact Phone: 973-523-5152
Rep. Gary Peters. Contact Phone: 248-273-4227
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Contact Phone: 305-668-2285
Rep. Betty Sutton. Contact Phone: 330-865-8450

If the repeal of DOMA is important to you and you see your member of Congress on this list, consider placing a call with your pointed questions and clear request for cosponsorship of H.R. 3567.

11 thoughts on “LGBT Equality Caucus Members Who Don't Support DOMA Repeal”

  1. Jacob says:

    H.R. 3567, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009 would be a huge huge huge blow against traditional marriage. This is the single most important peice of legislation out there right now. This would make it a matter a year or so before bans on gay marriage are illegal.

    1. Jim says:

      Jacob, do you think that if you move to another state your marriage should not be recognized in that new state?

      1. Jacob says:

        This is much bigger than that and you know it. This would be a land mark bill

        1. Jim says:

          Yet another question you won’t answer. I think I know why. This answer has consequences.

          1. Jacob says:

            I have answered this many many many many many many many many many many many times. I think it is wrong for marriage to be between same sex people. Therefor, this bill is a very big deal

            1. ReMarker says:

              Consider this. Can something be “wrong” and still be “good”? Conversly, can something be “right” and still be “bad”?

              Right/wrong is a moral judgement, Biblically advised to be made by God only.

              Good/bad is a value judgement, and can be made mere mortals.

              Seemingly based on your religious beliefs, Jacob, “wrong” may be accurate relative to your religion’s teachings or your understanding of your religious teachings. And it (the legislation) may be (Jacob’s words) “the single most important peice of legislation out there right now” IF your religion believes and teaches its passing adds to America’s unGodliness.

              However, as a mere mortal, I “value” judge the “Respect for Marriage Act of 2009” to be “good” because it doesn’t discriminate (per Constitutional requirements) against anyone because of race, religion, nationality, or sex.

              1. ReMarker says:

                After thought:
                Polygamy is discriminated against, but it is legislative, not Constitutional, discrimination (a law), and “good” in my judgement. How to raise “physiologically healthy” children with 400 wives?

            2. Jim says:

              No, Jacob, I’ve never asked you this question before. Let me ask you again:

              Jacob, do you think that if you move to another state your marriage should not be recognized in that new state?

  2. qs says:

    Well why don’t they kick those caucus members out of the caucus then?

    Side note: How does the black caucus enforce their membership. Do you have to be black?

    1. Jim says:

      No, at least not historically. There have been members of the congressional black caucus in the past who have not been black.

  3. Tom says:

    Jacob, please, this is far from the most important bill out there. I would file it under frivolous use of Congress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!