[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5273-S5274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, 
        Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cowan, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Heinrich, 
        Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Levin, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schatz, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. 
        Udall of New Mexico, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. 
        Wyden):
  S. 1236. A bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure 
respect for State regulation of marriage; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the 
Respect for Marriage Act.
  Today is an historic day. The Supreme Court issued two decisions that 
are major victories for the cause of equality for same-sex couples in 
this nation.
  In United States v. Windsor, the Court struck down Section 3 of the 
Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which denies the federal benefits and 
obligations of marriage to legally married same-sex couples. I was one 
of 14 members of this body to vote against DOMA in 1996, and I am 
pleased a major part of the law has been declared unconstitutional.
  In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court left in place a trial court 
injunction finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional--which will bring 
marriage equality back to my home State of California.
  I am thrilled by these decisions, which will mean a great deal for 
same-sex couples in California and across the Nation.
  Our work, however, is not done. It remains critical that Congress act 
to fully repeal DOMA. That is what the Respect for Marriage Act will 
do.
  This legislation is cosponsored by 40 members of the Senate--Senators 
Baldwin, Baucus, Bennet, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Cardin, 
Carper, Casey, Coons, Cowan, Durbin, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, 
Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, King, Klobuchar, Leahy, Levin, McCaskill, 
Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Murphy, Murray, Reed, Sanders, Schatz, 
Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Warren, Whitehouse, 
and Wyden.
  I want to thank them for their strong support of this legislation. I 
would also like to thank Representative Jerry Nadler for his staunch 
leadership on this issue in the House of Representatives.
  Today, 12 States: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, 
Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia allow same-sex 
couples to marry.
  Because of today's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which left, in 
effect, a trial court order finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional, my 
home State of California will soon once again recognize the freedom to 
marry for same-sex couples. I am thrilled about that result.
  According to the 2010 Census, there are over 131,000 same-sex married 
couples in this Nation--a number that is sure to grow.
  I think most Americans have come to recognize that same-sex couples 
live their lives like other married couples. They raise children 
together. They care for each other in good times and in bad. They take 
the same vows and make the same commitments as straight couples.
  Simply put, they are families. Like other families, they reap life's 
joys and bear the brunt of life's hardships together.
  Until the Supreme Court's decision today in United States v. Windsor, 
DOMA turned these families into second-class families.
  Under over 1,100 Federal laws, DOMA prohibited the Federal Government 
from recognizing the equal dignity and commitment of legally married 
same-sex couples.
  These couples were barred from filing joint tax returns, forced to 
pay much higher taxes on employer-provided health benefits, and 
stripped of protections for married couples from the estate tax.
  They could not receive Social Security survivor benefits, which 
protect a surviving spouse from becoming destitute when the other 
spouse passes away.
  Critical protections and benefits for service members and veterans 
were also denied. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense 
Network, well over 100 statutory protections granted by Congress to 
servicemembers turn on marital status.
  Today's decision in United States v. Windsor is a major victory for 
equality. It says that Section 3 of DOMA--which denies Federal 
recognition to legally married same-sex couples--is unconstitutional 
because it is a denial of equal protection.
  The Windsor case had to do with two women--Edie Windsor and Thea 
Spyer--who met in 1963 and were together for over 40 years. They 
married in 2007. Yet when Thea died in 2009, Edie was forced to pay 
over $360,000 in estate taxes because of DOMA. Had her spouse been a 
man, Edie would not have had to pay those taxes.
  Even after the Court decision, which hinged on a bare 5-4 majority, 
the Respect for Marriage Act remains critically important legislation, 
for several reasons.
  First, DOMA is a discriminatory law--all of it should be fully 
stricken from the books. It was wrong when it was passed, and it should 
be repealed.
  Second, even after the Windsor decision, there will remain 
inconsistencies in how certain Federal programs are administered.
  For example, the Social Security Act provides Survivors' Benefits--
which are critical for families after a spouse dies--based on the law 
of the state where the deceased spouse was domiciled at the time of 
death.
  So, a married couple could live together for 40 years, contribute 
equally to the system, and then be stripped of what they have earned--
just because they moved to another state for medical reasons before one 
spouse passed. That's just not right.
  Veterans benefits are based on the law of the state where the parties 
resided at the time of the marriage, or when the right to benefits 
accrued.
  So, different veterans benefits might be granted or denied, depending 
on where a couple lived at different times, without any rhyme or 
reason. That is not fair to former servicemembers who may have moved 
around as part of their military service.
  This bill is simple. It would strike all of DOMA, a discriminatory 
law, from the U.S. Code.
  It would provide a clear rule that the Federal Government would 
recognize a marriage if that marriage is valid in the State where it 
was entered into.
  This rule will provide clarity and predictability for legally married 
same-sex couples, and it will be easy to administer for federal 
agencies tasked with ending DOMA in the programs they administer.
  The bill would not require any state to issue a marriage license it 
does not wish to issue, nor would it require any religious institution 
to perform any marriage.
  In 2011, after I first introduced this bill, I gave a press 
conference about it at the National Press Club. I said I was not faint-
hearted about this, and that I was in it for the long march.
  Today, I remain committed to that cause and determined to see it 
through. Our work is not finished until DOMA is fully off the books, 
which is what this bill will do.

[[Page S5274]]



                          ____________________