Suggestions for Action
What do you think is the most effective way to turn this idea into real policy?
Add your suggestions here for how you think we should run an advocacy campaign to
advance the idea – including the overall strategy, messaging, targets, and tactics.
Approach this from the standpoint that people reading this forum already agree
with you on the importance of the issue, and are asking "What can we do to help
make this a reality?"
You can also comment on and rank the suggestions submitted by others.
Write a Suggestion
If you would like to leave a suggestion please sign in, or create an account
Endorsements for this Idea
Nonprofits and bloggers can formally endorse an idea they support. 2 current endorsements:
There is nothing in DOMA about domestic partners. DOMA only applies to the term marriage. So, any level of government can grant rights to domestic partners. This applies to the Memo President Obama signed last week allowing some benefits to partners of Federal employees, but not other benefits. The President cited in his statements before signing, DOMA prevented granting full benefits -- but it only prevents full benefits from being extended to MARRIED same-sex couples, not domestic partners. If President Obama really wanted to help us, he could start with realizing there is a loophole in DOMA.
Please read DOMA closely and see if you agree with what I found. I would like to be treated as an equal citizen under the law.
Suggested by Jo Schmoker on 06/22/2009 @ 08:57AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The last time that the federal government singled out a specific group of citizens as having fewer rights or liberties than the majority was in 1942, when Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which allowed for Japanese-Americans to be placed into internment camps. It was not until 1988 that any public apology was made for that act.
Today, we have DOMA. Today, I and others like me have been singled out as not having the right, privilege or liberty to marry the person of our choice.
But it goes farther than that. Legal marriages that have been performed in Massachusetts, Conneticut, California (until recently), and soon Vermont, have no legal standing in the eyes of the federal government or any federal agency.
While religious leaders and others claim that to recognize these marriages would destroy the institution of marriage, they have not suggested any changes to divorce laws. While they claim that marriage is for procreation, they do not limit marriage to those who can bear (or father) children and ignore the number of gay couples who have adopted, or conceived children through in vitro fertilization.
There have been, throughout the history of the United States, those people who have renounced their citizenship over various issues or for other reasons.
I have not renounced my citizenship. It was taken away from me when DOMA was passed.
Today, I may not have children. I may not adopt any child. I may not marry the person of my choice, although we are both consenting adults. I may not share my benefits with a spouse. My spouse will never have access to survivor benefits, never be able to apply for assistance should I become disabled. My spouse and I will be subject to double taxation. My spouse can not inherit anything from me without being subject to high taxes.
As long as I can not enjoy the same rights and liberties enjoyed by my neighbors, I am not a citizen. Even a resident alien will have more rights than I do.
Suggested by Mitchel McAllister on 03/21/2009 @ 12:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.