Valley News (White River Junction, Vermont)

July 11, 2009 Saturday

Daily Edition

Leahy Reverses on U.S. Marriage Act

BYLINE: John P Gregg, Valley News Staff Writer
SECTION: LOCAL/REGION; Pg. A1
LENGTH: 847 words

White River Junction -- U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy,

the chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, this week said he favors repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act,
the federal anti-gay marriage law that he supported in 1996.
"I'd vote to repeal it. It's served its purpose," Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said in an
interview Thursday with WTSA-FM radio in Brattleboro, Vt. "Some states will not
allow same-sex marriages, but for those that have, like Massachusetts and Vermont,
and others now, they should be allowed to give full benefits to the couples."
The 69-year-old Leahy stayed mum this spring as the Vermont Legislature narrowly
voted to legalize gay marriage, with his spokesman saying at the time that he did not
want to intrude on the legislative process in Montpelier.
Leahy has supported other efforts to grant some protections for gay couples at the
federal level, and has previously suggested that his vote for DOMA also was
intended, in part, to ward off more Draconian action -- a constitutional amendment
at the federal level banning gay marriage.
Yesterday, Leahy spokesman David Carle said the senator "supports Vermont's law"
and full repeal of DOMA.
Leahy, who is running for re-election in 2010, was attending three events celebrating
the 400th anniversary of the European discovery of Lake Champlain by French
explorer Samuel de Champlain and was not available for comment yesterday.
He'll be in the national spotlight next week as chairman of the confirmation hearings
for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and U.S. Reps. Peter Welch, D- Vt., and Paul
Hodes, D-N.H., have previously voiced support for gay marriage laws passed
this spring in both Montpelier and Concord. U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. is a
gay marriage opponent and voted for DOMA in 1996.
DOMA, which was signed by then-President Clinton, defined marriage as the legal
union of a man and woman only, and also said states were not required to recognize
a same-sex marriage from another state. One of its major effects is to prevent the
extension of federal benefits to married gay couples who live in states that recognize
their unions.

The Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders sued earlier this year on
behalf of several same-sex couples and three surviving spouses who have been
denied some federal benefits because of DOMA.
And earlier this week, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley sued the
federal government over DOMA, saying it denied married gay couples in
Massachusetts "equal treatment under the law."
President Obama
has also said he supports legislative repeal of DOMA.
Gary Buseck, the legal director for GLAD, said the shift by Leahy, who has sought to
provide other protections for gay couples, is noteworthy.
"If he is now stating that he agrees with the president that DOMA should be
repealed, he's an important player in that process," Buseck said. "There needs for
momentum to be built for Congress to take on the project of getting DOMA
repealed."
Corinth resident Linda Weiss, who is planning to marry her civil union partner, Joyce
McKeeman, on Sept. 1 when Vermont's law takes effect, said repeal of DOMA would
help her obtain health insurance through McKeeman's U.S. Postal Service health plan
once they are married.
"I'm delighted to hear that he has taken a public stand in favor of repeal," said
Weiss, the secretary of the Vermont Democratic Party. "I am hopeful that Sen. Leahy
will be using his seniority and his influence to actively work toward the creation of a
bill to repeal DOMA."
But with many states opposed to gay marriage -- more than half have passed
constitutional amendments at the state level that restrict marriage to one man and
one woman -- some officials said court cases may prove more significant than
legislative efforts to repeal DOMA.
"New Hampshire and Vermont are a long way from Wyoming, literally and
figuratively," said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, an early supporter of
gay marriage. "I wouldn't hold my breath expecting it to happen ... in today's
political climate, a court challenge holds at least as much promise as a Congressional
repeal."
Sorrell said Vermont is not immediately signing onto the Massachusetts case in part
because the two states are in different federal circuits, and in part because
Vermont's law has yet to take effect.
"We'll see what develops in Vermont after September first," Sorrell said. "For now we
are going to watch the Massachusetts case and consider, depending on how the case
evolves, weighing in (at the appeals court level) if and when the case is there."
Colin Manning, a spokesman for New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, also indicated that
DOMA was problematic now that gay marriage has been legalized in the Granite
State.
"Unfortunately, the federal government does not extend the same rights and
protections that New Hampshire provides same-sex families, and that should
change," Manning said in an e-mail. "As for the Massachusetts lawsuit, we have not
reviewed the litigation."