Santa Cruz Good Times

Thursday
Apr 24th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Town Hall with Rep. Sam Farr

SamFarrNewIn light of the president coming out in support of same-sex marriage and the recent ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1st Circuit Court, where do you think this issue is heading? Where do you stand?

Sixteen years ago, I voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because it was an affront on one of our most basic civil rights—the right to equal access and equal protection of the law. 

I was one of the few members of Congress who took that tough stance in the face of negative public opinion because it was the right thing to do. In addition, I had strong misgivings that the law could survive a challenge in the courts. 

This belief that was recently affirmed by a U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that struck down Section 3 of the law—the section that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman. In New York last week, another federal judge also ruled that Section 3 violated an individual’s constitutional rights, becoming the fifth federal court to do so.

Here in California, in our state’s own struggle for marriage equality, the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 by refusing to hear an appeal of an earlier ruling.  

These are not just “liberal activist judges” bent on legislating from the bench, as the right would want us to believe. For instance, the three judge panel for the 1st Circuit case included two Republican appointees. No, these are not activist judges but instead reasoned jurists who are properly interpreting the Constitution.

When DOMA was signed into law in 1996, all 50 states and the District of Columbia recognized marriage as between a man and woman only. Today, eight states and the District of Columbia recognize either same-sex marriage or civil unions. With public opinion tilting ever toward tolerance, and the majority of Americans now supporting equality in marriage, even more states will eventually follow suit.

Under DOMA, the federal government is barred from recognizing any marriage that is not between a man and a woman, even if that marriage was legally performed in a state that recognizes same-sex unions. This creates numerous legal barriers for same-sex spouses trying to navigate the waters between the federal and state governments.

According to the General Accounting Office, there are 1,138 federal rights, protections and benefits that come with marriage. DOMA denies legally married same-sex couples all of these rights, which are automatically granted to heterosexual couples. This directly violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

For that reason, the Obama Administration, which rightly has come out in support of marriage equality, has decided to no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA. Sadly, the administration must continue to enforce it until the law is repealed. Not wishing to see one of their pet issues disappear, House Republicans have taken up its legal defense.

While many of us in Congress are focused on issues that are important to the American people, like the economy or job creation, the Republican leadership has decided their priorities lie in the protection of this arcane law. And they are spending taxpayer dollars to do it.

House Republicans have written a $742,000 check to an outside law firm tasked with defending DOMA.  This does nothing to help the millions of Americans searching for work but instead only creates employment at one well-connected Washington law firm. That money could be better spent by investing in education and infrastructure to create real jobs for hard-working Americans.

Like the Republican control of the House, the days of marriage inequality are limited. As courts continue to rule against the constitutionality of DOMA and even more states stand up for equal rights, millions of same-sex couples will achieve the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.  

In Congress, I will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, just as I did in 1996.

Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

Best of Santa Cruz County 2014

The 2014 Santa Cruz County Readers' Poll Come on in, and have a look around. There’s a lot to see—hundreds of winners selected by thousands of GT readers across Santa Cruz County. So if some of this looks familiar, it’s probably because you helped make it happen. But there are always new things to discover, too—you could go to a different winner or runner-up every day in the Food and Drink category alone, and you’d be booked just about until next year’s Best of Santa Cruz County issue comes out.

 

Something Essential Disappears

Lunar and solar eclipses follow one another. Lunar eclipses occur at full moons, and solar eclipses at new moons. Two weeks ago at the full moon we had the blood red moon—a total lunar eclipse (the next one is Oct. 8). On Monday night, April 28 (new moon), as the Sun, Moon and Earth align, a solar eclipse (Sun obscured) occurs. Eclipses signify something irrevocably is changed in our world. The Sun is our essential life force. Monday’s new moon, 9 degrees Taurus, is also an annular solar eclipse when the Moon moves centrally in front of the Sun, yet does not cover the Sun completely. The Sun's outer edges, still visible, form a “ring of fire” around the Moon.

 

Sugar: The New Tobacco?

Proposed bill would require warning labels on sugary drinks Will soda and other saccharine libations soon come with a health warning? They will if it’s up to our state senator, Bill Monning (D-Carmel). On Feb. 27, Monning proposed first-of-its-kind legislation that would require a consumer warning label be placed on sugar-sweetened beverages sold in California. SB 1000, also known as the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, was proposed to provide vital information to consumers about the harmful effects of consuming sugary drinks, such as sodas, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened teas.

 

Film, Times & Events: Week of April 17

Santa Cruz area movie theaters >
Sign up for Tomorrow's Good Times Today
Upcoming arts & events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

Latest Comments

 

Palate-Stretching 101

A wine education with Soif’s experts As a veteran of many weekend wine “seminars” at Soif, I have to confess that I’ve never known less (going in) and learned more (coming out) than I did last week at the Spanish Wine Tasting with ace rep Brian Greenwood. These are classy, casual events and it’s hard to imagine having this much flavor fun anywhere for $20.

 

Martin Ranch Winery

Sauvignon Blanc 2011 One of my favorite wines is Sauvignon Blanc, and this one made by Martin Ranch is particularly lovely. Bright, crisp and refreshing, it’s perfect to pair with fish and shellfish—and good for picnics as it has an easy screw-cap bottle. There’s nothing worse than setting down your blanket, pulling out your sandwiches—and then realizing you don’t have a corkscrew.

 

Foodie File: Red Apple Cafe

Breakfast takes center stage at Gracia Krakauer's Red Apple Cafe Before they moved to Aptos, Gracia and her husband Dan Krakauer would visit friends in Santa Cruz County and eat at the Red Apple Café all the time. Then they moved up here from Santa Monica five years ago, and bought the Aptos location (there’s a separate one in Watsonville) from the family who owned it for two decades.

 

How would you feel about a tech industry boom in Santa Cruz?

I feel like it would ruin the small old-town feeling of Santa Cruz. It wouldn’t be the same Surf City kind of vacation town that it is. Antoinette BennettSanta Cruz | Construction Management