LGBT issues

by Jeremy Leaming

The blatantly discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, a Clinton era law, is unconstitutional, says another federal court judge. The decision also marks another step forward for marriage equality, which is part of a much wider movement advancing equality for the LGBT community.

As TPM reports, U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant, appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, said DOMA, recognizing only marriages between opposite-sex couples, violates “the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

In a lengthy opinion, Judge Bryant explored court precedent on the rights of lesbians and gay men, noting in part that a “long history of discrimination against homosexuals is widely acknowledged in American jurisprudence, including the United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. Many courts have concluded that homosexuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination.”

“In sum,” Bryant continued, “the evidence in the record detailing the long history of anti-gay discrimination which evolved from conduct-based proscriptions to status or identity-based proscriptions perpetrated by federal, state and local governments as well as private parties amply demonstrates that homosexuals have suffered a long history of invidious discrimination. Moreover this conclusion is consistent with the majority of cases which have meaningfully considered the question and likewise held that homosexuals as a class have experienced a long history of discrimination.”

by Jeremy Leaming

More than a decade ago federal lawmakers had little trouble coming together to pass a piece of legislation aimed at improving the lives of some the country’s most vulnerable. It was 1994 when Congress in sweeping bipartisan fashion passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), extending government services to victims of domestic violence.

But reauthorizing that law is mired in what The Hill’s Russell Berman says is a “familiar Capitol dynamic – a political staring contest on stalled legislation that has historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support.”

While Berman paints an evenhanded picture – both parties are obstinate, can’t work together – a strong argument can be made that what is really going on here involves the intransigence of the Republican Party. The party has moved so far to the fringe, has become so hostile to helping the nation’s most vulnerable that it should come as no surprise that it does not want to work with the Senate to reauthorize VAWA.

The reason is straightforward: today’s VAWA would expand services for victims of domestic violence.

The measure the Senate passed in April would bolster services for immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence, it would strengthen the ability of Native American authorities to prosecute domestic violence, and it would ensure help the LGBT community.

House Republicans and right-wing lobbying groups have opposed the new services. Longtime right-wing activist Phyllis Schafly, for instance, called the Senate’s VAWA reauthorization a “slush fund for the feminist lobby.”

When the House passed its reauthorization of VAWA in May it did not include the Senate’s call for extension of services, but also sought to cut existing services. At the time the House Judiciary Committee’s Ranking Member Rep. John Conyers blasted the House version for rolling back “existing law” and failing “to protect some of the most vulnerable victims of violence.”