Thursday, October 20, 2011

A letter from the Senetor

I am of the opinion that this would be a good start. I think it's only fair that if a couple is going to get married that the marriage should be respected by the federal government. It's not forcing anything on states that can't get with the program. But respects the decision of the states that are more progressive.

Dear Stew:
In light of your previous correspondence, I thought you would be interested to know that I recently signed on as a cosponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 (S.598).

The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, P.L.104-199) and would establish for purposes of federal law that an individual is considered married if the marriage is legal in the state where the marriage was performed.

Currently, same-sex partners can be legally married in six states—Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont—and in the District of Columbia. Under DOMA, these legally married couples cannot access the benefits and protections of federal law afforded to opposite-sex married couples. Because I generally believe laws regarding marriage are best left to states, I also believe that when a marriage is legal under state law, federal law should respect the state law’s determination, which is what the Respect for Marriage Act would accomplish.

Best wishes.

Carl Levin

It would be nice if my Canadian marriage was recognized. But, perhaps one day marriage will be legal in Michigan and we'll do it all over again. And I would, do it all again.


MorningAJ said...

I didn't reaslise you were married in Canada. Presumably because you couldn't get married in Michighan.

A friend and I were discussing this yesterday. She recently married , I've tried it twice and decided not to do it again.

Over here we have this strange arrangement that same sex couples can have a 'civil partnership', which gives them legal rights but isn't recognised as a marriage.

It isn't available to mixed sex couples. I think the whole situation is ridiculous.

Both Kev and I have been scarred by past marriages and re reluctant to do it again - but we would like some rights in our relationship. (We are not each other's next of kin because we have no legal asociation)

Our relationship has aleady lasted longer than all three of the marriages we've had between us.

Why can't we just have both options for everyone?

Good luck with your situation.

MorningAJ said...

that should say 'are reluctant'.... sorry