Marco Rubio Says He Won't Vote To Eliminate the Defense of Marriage Act, But His Explanation Makes No Sense

Rubio says states should decide marriage laws, but DOMA is a federal law that overruled state regulation.

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio is saying he won't vote for a new bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law that banned federal recognition of gay marriage. But his explanation suggests Rubio doesn't truly understand either DOMA or the new bill.

The Respect for Marriage Act, which passed the House last night, would strike down DOMA and require states to recognize same-sex marriages that have been performed legally in other states.

Under current law, thanks to two Supreme Court decisions, same-sex marriages are legally recognized all across the country, and DOMA is not being enforced, nor are any state-level bans that are still on the books. But the overturning of Roe v. Wade has led to concerns that other Supreme Court precedents may be at stake. The Respect for Marriage Act is intended to preemptively respond to a potential future Supreme Court ruling overturning the judicial precedents that legalized same-sex marriage nationally. If the Respect for Marriage Act were to pass, DOMA would no longer exist and the federal government would still recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that allow it.

The Respect for Marriage Act passed the House with support of all Democrats and 47 Republicans (including six Republicans from Florida). Now all eyes are on the Senate to see if 10 Republicans will support the bill and thereby make it immune to a filibuster.

Over at Business Insider, Rubio says he's a "no" vote because marriage is a state issue, which would be a defensible position if it weren't for the fact that DOMA—the law he wants to uphold on states rights grounds—makes marriage a federal issue.

"States decide marriage laws, they always have," Rubio said, according to Business Insider. "It's why you can get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator in two hours." He insisted to Business Insider that the bill was a "waste of our time on a non-issue."

This characterization of marriage would be lovely and wonderful if it were true. What he is either ignoring or not understanding is that DOMA deliberately stepped in and stopped the federal government from recognizing these marriages, and it affected everything from employee benefits and taxes, to adoption regulations and immigration. The states may be the ones setting the guidelines for marriage but federal recognition is not an afterthought. Whether the federal government recognizes a couple's marriage affects their lives significantly.

Rubio is correct that you can currently go to Las Vegas and get married by an Elvis impersonator. And, assuming you followed Nevada's laws, you can also come home and expect that your marriage will be recognized by your home state. But under DOMA, states that refuse to allow same-sex marriages could ignore the legal protections inherent in marriages performed in states where it is legal. That may be a "non-issue" for heterosexual couples, but it's a pretty big deal for the roughly 980,000 same-sex households in the U.S.

The irony here is that the Respect for Marriage Act would create the state-level system that Rubio appears to think is provided by DOMA. The Respect for Marriage Act does not require or force any state to marry same-sex couples. It does require them to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.

So in the event that the Supreme Court gay marriage precedents get struck down, Florida's statute banning clerks from giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples would be restored. Under the Respect for Marriage Act, Florida would, however, be required to recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts (which legalized recognition prior to the Supreme Court's ruling and wouldn't be affected by its reversal).

If Rubio actually did want control over marriages to remain at the state level, then honestly he should be jumping at the chance to get rid of DOMA.

Comments

[I, Woodchipper]

how many times do have to fucking tell you? NO ONE cares about gay marriage any more, from either side for or against it.

it's the least important issue you can spend your time publishing articles about.

[Super Scary]

Yeah, I know right? Gay is pretty old hat nowadays. It's all about transgender issues now! Besides, gay people are the straight white males of the LGBTQ.

[avyfoster14115]

I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (neh-06) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line

travelling this site.

>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk

[Rob Misek]

Marriage has always been between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Non heterosexual have a mental disorder that excludes them from marriage but to maintain the pretence that their disorder is normal, we have allowed a disordered lobby group to change the meaning of marriage.

Theirs is disordered reasoning. Laws and Supreme Court rulings based on disordered reasoning should be struck down like Roe was.

[retiredfire]

Throughout history, and probably before, marriage wasn't considered to have been fully accomplished unless it was consummated.
Mutual masturbation, which is all that homosexuals can perform, is not consummation.
Thus anything that homosexuals call "marriage" is just them pretending, just like the idea that they can have "sex", is pretending.

[Rob Misek]

Sex includes more than intercourse, but I get it.

I really don’t care what people do that doesn’t adversely affect someone else.

The thing is, by changing what my marriage means, to include any relationship has made my marriage mean less, nothing more than a legal status.

Civilization requires rules. One such rule includes choosing a mate and staying with them. This is for both social stability and the best interests of any children who are the living continuation of only one man and one woman.

You need only look at the state of black baby momma or homosexual culture to see increased dysfunction and crime.

I prefer the evolved rules of civilization.

[TommyT]

The gay movement has proven itself to be anti liberty. Libertarians should want to crush this movement. The KKK was more open minded than these authoritarians. You can't be a Libertarian and support the LBGT groups. It is incompatible.

[Nardz]

100%
Gay marriage doesn't matter.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

"NO ONE cares about gay marriage any more, from either side for or against it."

Tell that to Clarence Thomas. He seems to care.

[Nardz]

If you're a neurotic dumbass, you could interpret his comments that way.
To the sane, semi intelligent, and honest, it's clear that he was concerned with the poor judicial reasoning of Obergefell rather than homosexuals marrying.

[mad.casual]

Yeah. Scalia pretty flatly laid out that the problem wasn't with homosexuals marrying, it was with the judicial rectification of homosexuals branding themselves as perceived enemies of humanity by branding religious or even just moral and pious individuals as enemies of humanity.

[Ted]

Exactly. Same thing with the Dobbs decision. Which was primarily about 10th amendment too. As opposed to abortion itself.

[NOYB2]

Clarence Thomas doesn’t care about gay marriage, he cares about logic and consistency. Obergefell was wrongly decided and sets a bad precedent.

The correct thing to do is to reverse Obergefell and for Congress to pass legislation. Unfortunately, the Respect for Marriage Act is as flawed as the Defense of Marriage Act was.

[NOYB2]

Democrats care about gay marriage: they are using it to spread fear and keep gays and lesbians on the plantation.

[BestUsedCarSales]

The Respect for Marriage Act does not require or force any state to marry same-sex couples. It does require them to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.

You're cutting that one razor thin, Scott.

[BestUsedCarSales]

I actually don't know what marriage law is like currently though. How does marriage reciprocity work?

[BestUsedCarSales]

That said, that said, I actually don't care if this law is passed or not. I'm glad the legislature is doing something, which is what so many of these recent cases folks are losing their shit over are about.
It seems reasonable to me, even if I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage at all. But, I've made my peace with the fact that our culture as far debased marriage and was doing so well before gay marriage was an active issue.

[NOYB2]

Democrats are going to try to make this legislation fail, just like they have had no interest in codifying Roe: these divisive issues are just too good for fundraising.

[Ted]

It’s just about all they’ve got. Race and gay baiting is most of what they are, beyond their fundamental Marxism.

[Zeb]

All states recognize marriages from any other state as far as I know. I think they have to under "full faith and credit". I kind of think that would have been a better way to deal with gay marriage. Marriage isn't a federal power, but states have to recognize marriages from other states under the constitution.

[Overt]

The DOMA said states did NOT have to recognize Same Sex Marriages.

[Overt]

I don't think you are interpreting the Full Faith and Credit clause correctly. There are many licenses and certifications that you can get in one state that you don't get in other states. Even Drivers Licenses are recognized in other states only due to legislation, not some constitutional prerogative.

For example, hunting licenses, CCWs, learners permits, and many occupational licenses are not respected across state lines, or if they are, it is due to compacts between multiple states, or due to similarities in requirements. For example, California will issue me a hunter safety license if I can prove to them that I have completed a certain set of safety courses...by providing them my Colorado license, which proves I did so. They aren't recognizing my Colorado license, just accepting it as proof of prerequisites, and issuing me a California version.

[See Double You]

Yeah, the FFC is actually fairly narrow, at least in how it's been interpreted so far. It has mainly been used to enforce judgments from other states, even for child-support/spousal support judgments obtained from same-sex divorces where a divorcee moves to a no-SSM state, but that's about it.

[mad.casual]

All states recognize marriages from any other state as far as I know. I think they have to under "full faith and credit". I kind of think that would have been a better way to deal with gay marriage. Marriage isn't a federal power, but states have to recognize marriages from other states under the constitution.

This is and was, to a degree, Thomas (and Scalia's) opinion. The enacting of gay marriage as a Federally-protected right under due process and equal protection was wrong. As Overt points out, enacting it in this manner skips several bases that were explicitly not skipped for more clearly delineated Federal rights.

[DesigNate]

I know Texas doesn’t.

[Mickey Rat]

Oh yaya, another article supporting the Disrespect of Marriage Act from Shackford

[Zeb]

DOMA is unconstitutional and should have been repealed long ago. I don't know what else is in this law, so I have no comment on the law as a whole.

[retiredfire]

Article 4, Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
DOMA was Congress, by general law, prescribing the manner in which the full faith and credit shall be given, with respect to marriage, and the effect, thereof.
How can something, that conforms to the exact language of the Constitution, be unconstitutional?

I know. No one really cares about the plain language.
Everything is about the feelz.

[B G]

Why does this clause not apply to issued CCW permits between states? I could understand the logic to excluding reciprocity for states not requiring any kind of permit (since there's no "public record" involved), but for actual issued licenses the states have to have specific reciprocity deals in place for their permits to be deemed valid in other states.

[Jgalt1975]

To the extent states are not recognizing such licenses from other states, the highlighted language would allow Congress to pass legislation standardizing the form of licenses and require other states to recognize them.

[NOYB2]

The Full Faith and Credit clause establishes that legal judgments are recognized across state lines, as are birth certificates etc.

Oklahoma can recognize that Bob and Bill are married in California while still limiting its own state benefits to “opposite sex married couples”. That is, it recognizes California’s records, it just extends different benefits from California based on those records.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I can't think of anyone who takes the Stephen Douglas position on marriage, letting each community decide for itself.

Federalism is really just a rhetorical smokescreen for whatever position the politician in question has regarding recognizing SSM.

[Overt]

Mr Shackford thinks that "States Rights Issues" ought to work like this: If a state doesn't want to do something for you, they don't have to...unless another state overrules.

This is silly. The state of Nevada will let me buy or sell any weapon I want within federal law. Does that mean California has to recognize my rights to own said gun?

I can get a CCW in Colorado. But California is not obligated to respect it.

Now, you might think it is better for the nation to require that States recognize one another's marriages (just as it might be better to recognize Drivers Licenses and CCWs). So make that argument. Don't try to play these word games saying that that's a state's rights argument. Because it isn't.

DOMA Specifically says that States are allowed to recognize or not recognize SSM from other states. It also says that the Federal Government must not recognize SSM from any state. So it both protects states' rights to make these decisions for themselves, and also interferes with states' rights to make these decisions because it refuses to recognize ONLY SSM.

But the idea that the Respect Marriage Bill is better on leaving states to their decisions, this is absolutely wrong. Rubio is right, barely.

[BestUsedCarSales]

Thanks for saying what I was thinking so I could just be lazy and sarcastic instead.

[Social Justice is neither]

You over generalize Scott's position as he's proven time and again if he doesn't like something then the maximum proscription should apply instead of the maximal permission.

[Jgalt1975]

Art. 4, Sec. 1 of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress authority to regulate what constitutes giving "full faith and credit":

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Lobby your representative and senator to introduce similar legislation on concealed carry permits.

[Yatusabes]

Scott, as usual, is lying, likely because he is not married.

For those gay men like me who did get married, we also had power of attorneys, medical surrogate and other legal instruments in place prior to our civil marriage.

Marriage is a religious construct. The govt should get out of issuing marriage licenses. Let them instead issue whatever civil document they wish and call it whatever they want to call it, and be done.

Heterosexuals pissed, desecrated, made mockery and defiled marriage way before Adam and Steve got into the picture. My husband and I are legally married but frankly what matters is what he and I conceive of marriage, as the Catholic Church teaches. In the Catholic Church, it isnt the priest that marries the couple. The couple effects the marriage with the priest merely being a witness. So quash the Federal involvement in marriage. My husband and I will be still be married in our minds. Just give us a piece of paper to submit to the hospitals, banks, HR employers so that we are both covered.

Scott isnt married for a reason. Less than 10% of homosexuals are married. There is a reason for that: most are insufferable.

[Ricport]

Yatusabes shoots, he scores. Exactly on point. Get government out of the marriage business, issue civil unions for all couples - gay or straight, and put marriage back where it belongs: religious institutions.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Heterosexuals pissed, desecrated, made mockery and defiled marriage way before Adam and Steve got into the picture."

I acknowledge that, but now Adam and Steve demand the right to join in the mockery and defilement.

[EscherEnigma]

Cool story bro.

Me and my husband were living in sin for seven years before we got married. We didn't get any of those legal powers because lawyers are expensive.

As far as marriage being a religious construct? Duck off with that nonsense. I got married in an office. My parents got married in a court house. Three hundred years ago you could just call yourself married and folks accepted it. This notion that religion has or ever had ownership of marriage is 100% pure bullshit.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If religious people claimed to have invented marriage, they'd be (rightly) dismissed as promoting superstitious propaganda.

Some religions tried to regulate and purify marriage, but they were dealing with a pre-existing institution.

Anyway, the purification didn't seem to work.

[Will Nonya]

Where does the federal government derive its authority to have anything to do with recognizing marriage? Where does it's authority to force states to either recognize or not recognize any type of marriage come from?

While I don't give two shits what people do in their private lives and Marco Rubio not understanding something is hardly news I don't belive the federal government should have any role in marriage. Whether that's in forcing recognition or creating preferential tax conditions for recognized couples the feds should just stay out of it.

[NOYB2]

I don’t think there should be a federal income tax or Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security, but there is. The federal government also sets the rules for immigration. All of those currently involve marital status. That’s why the federal government, right now, in the world we live in, has to deal with the definition of marriage.

[Jgalt1975]

U.S. Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 1, dipshit. Read the second clause: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

Honoring a contract signed in one state in another seems reasonable. If that happens to be a spousal contract between two members of the same sex it should not matter. It is not reasonable to violate a state law by simply driving across the border.

I really don't care if a person decided to commit themselves into a spousal contract assuming that all parties to the contract are of legal age and not under duress.

It is not the purview of the federal government to force a state to allow same sex spousal contracts to be signed within their state. However the state government should not insert itself into the private affairs of their residents.

My only problem with "Gay Marriage" is the forcible distortion of the language. It is one thing for the language to evolve over time which is expected, but to forcibly demand the alteration of the language diminishes the ability of the language to differentiate meaning.

If a word starts to include more and more terms, then the work begins to lose meaning and in order to distinguish meaning becomes more difficult. This current hot item with the distortion of the language is the definition of what is a woman.

I could care less if a person decides that they want to transition to another gender. It's not my personal choice, but I don't have the desire to force people to conform to my personal choices either. I do have a problem as an English speaking person with the distortion of the language.

When attempting to converse with another person words need to convey a specific meaning and if the definition is overly broad it makes it difficult.

As mentioned before, language evolving over time allows English speaking people to learn with the evolution of the language. When the language is changed due to a forcible revolution speakers of the language simply lose the ability to communicate with each other.

Compound this loss of ability to communicate, the woke crowd distorting the language can't clearly define the new rules. everyday speakers of the language find themselves subject to the wrath of woke crowd and their idiotic notions.

[ThomasD]

"Honoring a contract signed in one state in another seems reasonable."

Except that's not how it currently works.

You get a standard issue marriage certificate in Florida, and sign on the lines. Ten years later move to Arizona. A couple years after that you file for divorce. Applicable divorce law is Arizona's, not Florida's.

[mad.casual]

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio is saying he won't vote for a new bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law that banned federal recognition of gay marriage. But his explanation suggests Rubio doesn't truly understand either DOMA or the new bill.

The Respect for Marriage Act, which passed the House last night, would strike down DOMA and require states to recognize same-sex marriages that have been performed legally in other states.

Poor Scott. So broken.

OK, Scott try this, the 2A says "shall not be infringed". But, in IL, I'm required to have an FOID (and wait 72 hrs. to buy a gun). If I go to an FFL in WI or IN, the FFL is required to observe IL's FOID (and wait 72 hrs.) even if their own state doesn't issue FOIDs and Federal Law says "shall not be infringed". I could go on and on covering everything from health insurance, occupational licensing, and sanctuary cities to simply growing and selling wheat. Some of your compatriots even took this absurdity so far as to say Kyle Rittenhouse *shouldn't even have been in WI*.

The only way Rubio is completely confused on this issue is if your conception ignores the last two centuries of reality to arrive at "Whether it's Federal law or State law, you *must* obey."

[B G]

I thought that under Federal laws, the FFL in WI or IN would have to ship the firearms being purchased to a FFL in your state of residence who would then process the transfer according to the laws in that state.

[ThomasD]

FFLs in States physically contiguous to your State of residence can sell you a long gun.

Pistols have to be transferred to an FFL in your state of residence.

[mad.casual]

FFLs in States physically contiguous to your State of residence can sell you a long gun.

GOPA '68 has a stipulation for contiguous states, FOPA '86, which in part amends GOPA doesn't. More importantly, both use or assume "so long as the transfer is legal in both states." which, buying a rifle without an FOID and 3 days is illegal in IL.

[mad.casual]

Sorry, GCA '68.

[mad.casual]

I feel I should make it clear that I'm not looking to, nor would convict an FFL who claim a 'contiguous state' exemption to any given sale, but others would.

And the same applies to gay marriage. Nobody should ever arrest you for having a same-sex partner. Want to file jointly with your same-sex partner? Go over the border to get married, file taxes there, support common law marriage in your adoptive state, and vote for the repeal of the NFA and GCA. The selective "The layer cake should work for my *rights* and against my opponents' 'rights' regardless of what The Constitution says!" is exactly the the kind of bullshit Thomas is talking about when he decries that the judiciary won't hear 2A cases.

[mad.casual]

Do you want to wade through it (I have and can) or can I just wave it away with "vagueness and substantial equivalence"?

The main point being, in the specific context, we have a no-shit right being infringed by a long-standing State and Federal regulation scheme and Scott pretends that such a scheme is untenable for a right that doesn't exist under The Constitution.

[mad.casual]

Sorry, for my inaccurate depiction of Scott's retardation:

Scott pretends that such a scheme is untenable for a right that doesn't exist under The Constitution he pretends exists *under Equal Protections*.

For others, the claim is even more retarded:

They pretend that such a scheme is untenable *due to full faith and credit* for a 'right' they pretend exists *under Equal Protections*.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Rubio either is a bigot (standard for Republicans these days) or is pandering to bigots.

Either way, an obsolete, disgusting coward.

Nothing replacement won't solve.

[NOYB2]

Marco Rubio Says He Won't Vote To Eliminate the Defense of Marriage Act, But His Explanation Makes No Sense

The “Respect for Marriage Act” does more than repeal DOMA, it also creates new federal legislation. So, he isn’t voting for the entire legislation.

In fact, I would expect Democrats to deliberately put in some poison pills that make the legislation unacceptable to Republicans so that they can use it as a campaign issue.

Maybe this “makes no sense to you”, or maybe you are deliberately misrepresenting it. Which is it?

[B G]

It would still have to go through the Senate, and possibly reconciliation, but the current text of the bill is amazingly straightforward and limited to just what the proponents are claiming. Aside from repealing DOMA, it pretty much just affirms that the "full faith and credit" clause applies to any marriage contract between any two people that's entered legally in any State.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text

Rubio has a minor point in that all this accomplishes is to essentially codify what the USSC has already ruled. With DOMA (as well as state level bans on allowing/recognizing SSM) overturned as violating equal protection under 14A, it's hard to imagine how any possible test case could come up which would allow the court to re-consider Oberfeld anyway.

The bigger surprise to me is that anyone really sees this as still being a significant point of controversy worthy of the time that's been spent on it already though. There can't possibly be enough social conservatives willing to die on this hill to make it worth the effort for the GOP to really oppose it.

[NOYB2]

The bill forces states to extend equal benefits to same sex and opposite sex marriages. That is not “leaving marriage up to the states”, nor is it merely “affirming the full faith and credit clause”.

For example, a state might reasonably choose to limit tax exemptions or state benefits to heterosexual married couples where the woman is under 40.

[mad.casual]

It actually, in this case, represents an abuse of the "full faith and credit clause".

That is, the "full faith and credit clause" isn't supposed to create rights, it's supposed prevent rights from being infringed. If CO grants marriages to same-sex couples and IN outlaws same-sex marriage criminally, the clause is supposed to prevent IN from convicting CO couples in IN, not compel IN to offer CO couples the same equal protections they would enjoy in CO.

Given the shitstorm equal protections in CO has generated, yeah, some no-shit, non-conservative libertarians, especially in IN, might rightly see the options as being "die on this hill" or "just die". Note that CO (Masterpiece Cake Shop, 303 Creative LLC.) and IN (Memories Pizza), weren't entirely whimsically chosen.

[NOYB2]

I think a lot of Democrats would like to wash the stain of having voted for DOMA off their record while at the same time being able to denounce Republicans as being “anti-gay”.

I think in practice, RFMA makes no difference to gays and lesbians. RFMA will primarily be used by angry activists to stage more stunts, stunts that will in the end do more harm than good for tolerance of gays and lesbians.

If RFMA passes with 10-20 Republicans, it would probably be good for Republicans because it gets the issue off the table and lets Republicans say “we are a big tent where we tolerate different views”.

[Yatusabes]

I think a lot of Democrats would like to wash the stain of having voted for DOMA off their record while at the same time being able to denounce Republicans as being “anti-gay”.

Its all political theater.

Not all gays and lesbians believe the talking points of either party, esp. Democrats. I was a registered Democrat since my college years, and switched in late 2020 to NPA precisely because of what they did to Trump, this despite my hating him and never voted for him. I "walked away" from the current Dem Party. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senator Hillary Clinton, Pres. Obama could have introduced legislation protecting gays from employment discrimination, gay marriage, etc. Hillary and Obama were against gay marriage / civil unions during his first presidential term, and even later, they did nothing. Then there is Bill Clinton's "Dont ask, dont tell". Nah, dont think that the unemployed, retarded, liberal latte drinking, purple hair, trans alphabet fuckups have anything in common with us educated, professionally employed homos.

[DRM]

Oh, for fuck's sake, Shackleford. It's incredibly simple; if you're requiring states to recognize marriages that violate the laws of that state, you are the opponent of states deciding on marriage laws.

Sure, Rubio chose an unapposite example of his principle, but he's on the side of states deciding marriage laws, and you're opposed. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is just utterly pathetic.

[mad.casual]

Your attempt to pretend otherwise is just utterly pathetic.

"I don't understand, why can't we just have an Emperor that feeds Christians to the lions like Decius and Diocletian did?" - Scott

[Ted]

Yeah, Shackford is total shit.