established 1986 Vol. XIX, No. 7 August 2004 us edtril MA is DOA, But Threats Still Loom No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section I 783c [DOMA] of this title or of this section. — H.R. 3313, the ‘Marriage Protection Act’ ast month’s defeat of the ‘Federal Marriage Amendment’ in the U.S. Senate — even though long expected — is a -welcome repudiation of the-President-’s~~ -— cynical attempt to bash the gay community to both appease and energize his far-right base. Our national community and its allies owe thanks to the Democratic minority in the Senate for fiilfilling its year-old pledge to kill the amendment, to the six Republican senators who broke party ranks, and to the many gay and straight organizations who have worked so hard on this, including the Human Rights Campaign, Log Cabin Republicans, LLEGO, the National Black Justice Coalition, People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and so many, many more. We can and must savor this moment. At the same time, there are many clouds over the vote. First, while every vote against the amendment is welcome, the vote was far from a ringing endorsement for ‘ equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. In fact, the statements made by so many senators to explain their votes were discouraging, fre- quently insulting, and denied many Americans the respect we are due. Some said the amendment was ‘unnecessary’ because the repulsive ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ already bans the recogni- tion of same-sex marriage. Others said that marriage has always been a ‘state rights issue’ and should be lefi to the states to work out. Still others objected because they saw the amendment as ‘divisive,’ or politically motivated, or an attempt to distract the nation and the Congress from other, more important matters. — Over and over again we heard even our staunchest allies repeating ad nauseam the mantra, ‘I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,’ or the ever-popular ‘While I do not support gay marriage ...’ Not a single Senator said he or she was voting against the amendment because marriage is a fiindamental right that same-sex couples should" enjoy under the Constitution. If the Senate reflected and articulated the views of the American public, -at-least one-third of thenrwouldihave argued for marriage equality and the basic rights of all Americans. Second, even though the vote was technically procedural (whether to stop debate), six Republican Senators crossed party lines — even though party unity on pro- cedural votes is expected. Had the Democratic Party’s nominees for President and Vice President come for the vote, a majority of the Senate — a much more pow- erful block of 52 members — would have voted against the amendment. This missed opportimity could have sent a strong mes- sage to the U.S. House and to the over one- dozen states that will have state constitution- al amendments on the ballot this November. Third, the fight in Congress is far from over. The right wing will be sure to haunt Senators for not being anti-gay enough. And members of Congress may bow to the pressure from the right instead of doing their jobs to represent all Americans. For example, the House of Representatives is taking up the Marriage Protection Act of 2003, (H.R. 3313) which seeks to strip fed- eral courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. If enacted, this so-called court stripping bill means only state courts could consider DOMA challenges, and state courts have no jurisdiction to consider the constitu- tionality of discrimination against same-sex couples in immigration, Social Security sur- vivor benefits, or federal tax issues. The many Senators who justified their vote because the nation already has DOMA will have a hard time objecting to this legislation. But the ugliest storm cloud on the horizon is the clutch of state anti-marriage constitutional amendments that will be on state ballots this November. While the com- munity’s focus has been on the stillborn fed- eral amendment, the right has already suc- ceeded in putting state constitutional anti- marriage amendments on the ballot inpeleven states, with three or four more states likely to be added to the list. At least one in four Americans who cast their ballots this year will be voting on measures that would ensure our second-class place for genera- tions to come. This orchestrated attempt to write discrimination into the founding char- ters of our state governments is unprecedent- ed in American history and has gone largely urmoticed. It’s no secret that our state and local organizations — incredibly smart, brave, and dedicated - are at a huge disadvantage in terms of money, resources, and organiza- tional infrastructure. They will now bear the brunt of the.right’.s.assault_We.know.from;:: experience that fighting anti-LGBT initia- tives frequently leaves state and local com- munities drained, demoralized, and fractured" — and that is a clear objective behind the right’s state amendment campaign. The FMA is DOA, but getting it to the morgue gave the anti-gay right the time it needed to run roughshod over us in more than a dozen states. ‘ We must turn our attention and energy to the states where our Constitutional rights are genuinely up for grabs at ballot boxes in 2004. As well, we must fight vigor-A ously against the noxious court-stripping bill, HR3313. This legislation is far more menacing than the FMA because it may actually pass — and if passed in this Congressional session, will surely be signed by the most anti-gay President to ever occu- py the White House. Matt Foreman Matt Foreman is the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task F orce.