Florida Agenda

UPDATE: On April 4, 2013, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) announced that he supports same-sex marriage. Read the complete story at:

http://floridaagenda.com/2013/04/05/on-solid-ground-u-s-sen-bill-nelson-endorses-marriage-equality/

WASHINGTON, DC — Although a growing chorus of national law- and policymakers of both major political parties have voiced their support for same-sex marriage, Florida’s senior United States Senator, Bill Nelson, remains one of just a handful of prominent Democrats who continue to withhold their support for marriage equality for gay Americans.

Within the last week, three Democratic U.S. Senators—Jon Tester of Montana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania—have announced that, like President Obama, their views on gay marriage have “evolved” to supporting full marriage rights for gay men and women.

But Nelson, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000 after serving for a dozen years in the U.S. House and a stint as state Insurance Commissioner, remains committed to the traditional definition of marriage.

“My personal preference is that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Nelson, 70, said last week. After serving in the U.S. Army in the late 1960s, the Miami-born Nelson became a lawyer and was elected to the state House of Representatives, and then to Congress. In 1986, he became one of only two sitting Members of Congress to travel into space, undergoing NASA training and serving as a Payload Specialist aboard the space shuttle Columbia during a seven-day mission.

Including Nelson, only eight Democratic U.S. Senators remain opposed to marriage equality: Tom Carper (Delaware), Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), and Mark Pryor (Arkansas).

On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), a pro-life Roman Catholic Democrat who opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger, announced his support for marriage equality.

“We’ve always known that there are some Democratic lawmakers who are social conservatives and who still take issue with the idea of full civil rights for gay Americans,” Michael Emanuel Rajner, Legislative Affairs Director for the Florida Democratic Party GLBT Caucus, told the Agenda.

“We are now seeing many of those who opposed marriage equality for political reasons are finally coming around to speaking the truth,” he added.

So what is Nelson’s “problem?” In spite of his opposition to marriage equality, Nelson is consistently ranked (including by the respected National Journal) as a liberal-to-moderate lawmaker on matters relating to the economy and social issues.

“For a long time, Nelson has stated that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states,” Rajner noted.

That position has been shared by many other prominent Democrats, including President Obama, who last year announced his own personal “evolution” towards supports for full marriage rights for gay Americans.

Rajner says that despite Nelson’s national credentials as a liberal, his support for civil unions leaves LGBT Americans out in the cold.

“Even where civil unions are permitted, married gays are denied over 1,000 federal benefits that DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] prevents them from receiving. And Nelson’s refusal to co-sponsor legislation—like the Uniting American Families Act—which would narrow that gap for gay families casts him in a particularly suspect light,” added Rajner.

He also noted that Nelson refuses to endorse the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), proposed legislation to repeal DOMA and require the federal government to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. Among those who support RFMA are President Obama, former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law in 1996, and former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, the Georgia Republican who was the original House sponsor of DOMA.

“If Nelson supported RFMA, it would truly make it a states’ rights issue. Where’s the disconnect?”

“No man can logically say he [doesn’t] care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he [doesn’t] care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing.” Abraham Lincoln

“I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, [DOMA] is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.” Bill Clinton

One of the things I find most regrettable about Modern American Life is that we have such a deep disconnect with our own history. Although the History channel and its kins-networks, A&E, Biography, Discovery, etc., etc. are but a channel click away—to say nothing of, gasp!, books, or as my partner would say “Kindles” (whatever those are)—most of our fellow countrymen don’t have much connection to the Great Moments in Time which have shaped the framing of this still-being-framed (with apologies to the strict constructionist crowd) Picture of What and Who Is America.

Our nation’s Anti-Federalists, Frontier Hunter/Heroes, Mugwumps, Know-Nothings, Free-Soilers, Barnburners, Doughfaces, Copperheads, Fire-Eaters, Scallywags, Bourbon Democrats, Locofocos, and their likewise ash-heaped brethren will likely be remembered (if they are remembered at all) by a small sub-culture of sallow, wine-drinking, tweed-wearing, Metro-sexual types who listen to NPR (or its 22nd Century-equivalent) and stalk Wikipedia in the wee-small-hours.

I mention this because at this very moment, we stand upon the precipice of one such Great Moment in Time, with the U.S. Supreme Court hearing oral arguments this week in the cases which challenge the egregiously exclusionary Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the last gasp of Jim Queer-disguised-as-states’-rights (or worse, Popular Sovereignty, another slave-era holder; check History for times and listings…), California’s Proposition 8.

Justice Anthony Kennedy himself, the Is-He-Or-Isn’t-Boy for LGBT Rights among the high court, wrote in his majority opinion for Lawrence v. Texas that, “As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.” That 2003 decision illegitimated sodomy laws as violating constitutionally-protected liberty.

When the voters approved Proposition 8, they rewrote the California constitution so that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in” that state. For purposes of all federal laws, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defines the word “marriage” to include “only a legal union between one man and one woman.”

In their brief to the high court arguing in support of DOMA, opponents of same-sex marriage argued that, just as the states have a right to define marriage as they choose for their own purposes, so does the federal government. This is, of course, the same argument used to justify slavery (including, sadly, by the Supreme Court of its day; see History for the “Dred Scott Decision”).

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on challenges to a section of DOMA and to Prop. 8. Though very different in nature (see this week’s POLITICS, “DOMA or Prop. 8: Which Ruling Matters More?” on the facing page, for an analysis), in both instances, the court has the opportunity to rule that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government and every state from so narrowly defining the fundamental right of marriage, and that it likewise fully protects the liberty of same-sex couples.

As the California Supreme Court noted when they legalized same-sex marriage (prior to the enactment of Prop. 8), the reason for denying marriage equality was to officially label these unions as not of “comparable stature or equal dignity” to heterosexual marriages.

The intent of Proposition 8—passed, of all places, in the “Land of Fruits of Nuts”—was to enshrine discrimination into law and to encourage the stigmatization of gay men and women and same-sex couples.

DOMA has the same impact. And in depriving gay couples and their kids federal benefits and recognition, it fails to pass Constitutional muster.

It’s dangerous to compare what sits before the high court—particularly the Proposition 8 case—to Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregated schools (and the Jim Crow doctrine of “separate but equal”).

The problem with Brown was the justice’s call for states to end racial discrimination in public schools “with all deliberate speed.” It permitted the states to drag their feet in meaningful integration of the schools much as the aftermath of Reconstruction (more History channel stuff) gave them an excuse to delay implementing the civil rights of African-Americans for a century after the Civil War won them their “freedom.”

Between now and June, the high court can decide—without ambiguity—that the Constitution upholds equally the right to marry for all couples, and that this right applies both to the federal government and to every one of the United States.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court considers two different yet equally powerful cases in which the justices will attempt to define for this generation just what it means to be married.

On Tuesday, March 26, the high court heard arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage.  On Wednesday, March 27, the justice heard arguments in United States v. Windsor, the challenges of the constitutionality of a section of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

While both cases are landmark in their importance to the future of gay rights, the Prop. 8 case, Hollingsworth, could result in both changes to the law and the status of LGBT Americans, a Brown v. the Board of Education for LGBT rights.

In the case of Hollingsworth, the Supremes have an opportunity to decide on the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutionally-protected right to marry.

The DOMA case, Windsor, is far more limited in its scope. It doesn’t ask who has the right to marry, but rather whether legally-married same-sex couples should have access to the same federal benefits as married heterosexual couples.

In 2008, after the California Supreme Court granted gay couples the right to marry, voters passed Prop. 8, prohibiting same-sex marriage. That meant that voters took away a right that a court had already established exists. Subsequent federal courts have ruled Prop. 8 to be unconstitutional.

The brief challenging Proposition 8 argues that the voter-approved law is unconstitutional “because it denies gay men and lesbians their fundamental right to marry without furthering a legitimate—let alone a compelling—state interest.”

Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, and the court has never limited that right to those who choose to procreate. The brief says that the California law was lack “enacted solely for the purpose of making gay men and lesbians unequal to everyone else,” a violation of the Constitution.

Additionally, the Obama Administration filed its own brief arguing in support of protecting same-sex marriage in California and the eight other states that recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Defenders of Proposition 8 argue that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment does not require California to redefine marriage to include gay couples.

How will the justice rule? On the fuzzy end of the lollipop, they might decide that the supporters of Prop. 8 do not have legal standing to challenge the California law (disliking gays not being considered enough of a “compelling interest”), and send the case back to the lower courts.

They might also conclude that their decision only applies to California, rendering the decision less sweeping than LGBT rights supporters might wish.

But if the Supremes decide that it’s time to “take out the trash,” they could rule that—nationwide— marriage is a protected right for same-sex couples. It’s a long way to June, when the ruling is likely to be handed down.

Last December, Florida’s former Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, told a group of reporters who asked if he regretted signing a petition banning same-sex marriage in the state constitution, “I think the best way to judge where my heart is, is to look at the deeds that I have done, whether as attorney general [or] as governor…”

Since last September’s Democratic National Convention, I’ve been eagerly awaiting Charlie Crist to prove that he has a compassionate heart, and clearly argue his position on marriage equality. I have also been waiting for the Democratic National Committee and President Obama to make things right with LGBT Convention delegates, and facilitate a meaningful dialogue with Crist on issues important to LGBT Floridians. Both the DNC and President Obama have fallen flat on their faces and failed miserably to ensure such opportunities existed between Crist and LGBT activists.

In the days leading up to the 2012 Democratic National Convention, I publicly raised the issue as the only openly-gay elected delegate (out of eight delegates who were representing DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s congressional district at the Convention). Officials from the DNC shamefully berated me when Steve Rothaus of the Miami Herald published a blog post entitled “Gay Democratic Delegate: Convention Speaker Charlie Crist ‘the Ultimate Political Whore’.”

On March 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). LGBT activists have been applauding the leadership of many Democrats and Republicans who signed on to amicus briefs arguing DOMA’s unconstitutionality.

Remarkably, no amicus brief was submitted by Charlie Crist, who is reported to be employed by the Orlando-based mega-law firm of Morgan & Morgan. Crist is said to be earning an annual salary of $1,000,000, and I find it mind boggling that given all the resources of that law firm, Crist decided instead to audition for the hybrid role of the  Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion (from the “Wizard of Oz”), choosing to remain silent on the DOMA arguments before the Supreme Court.

It was a missed opportunity for Crist to prove he has a compassionate heart, as well as an opportunity for the DNC and President Obama to make amends for their insensitivity concerning Crist’s speech last year at the Democratic National Convention.

Throughout Crist’s political career, he always hid in the closet or pandered to religious conservatives when a controversial issue demanded a real leader to step forward.

Charlie Crist, I’m following your advice: I’m judging you on your past action for supporting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Florida, and for the absence of your leadership in the argument about the unconstitutional nature of DOMA.

Michael Emanuel Rajner is the Legislative Director for the Florida Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Democratic Caucus, and serves on the Broward County Human Rights Board. A slightly different version of this piece originally appeared at The Bilerico Project.

WASHINGTON, DC — In what amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John Boehner and the conservative leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, dozens of prominent Republicans, including several with senior ties to former President George W. Bush, have signed a legal brief in support of the constitutional right of gay Americans to marry.

The document, which was also signed by four former state governors and two Members of Congress, reflects the growing rifts in the national Republican Party since its defeat in the November 2012 presidential election.

It will be submitted this week to the U.S. Supreme Court as an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief in support of a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the California voter-approved ballot initiative that bans same-sex marriage, as well as all other similar prohibitions.

The high court will hear that challenge next month, along with a suit seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The justices are expected to deliver a decision sometime in June.

Experts say the brief has the potential to influence conservative justices in equal measure because of the legal arguments contained as well as for the influential names attached to it.

As of February 25, the names of current and former GOP officials, grandees, and ideologues included 75 individuals not normally associated with LGBT rights activism.

Meg Whitman, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for Governor of California who supported Proposition 8, signed the brief, changing her previous position. Others who signed include Stephen Hadley, a National Security Adviser under George W. Bush, Bush Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, David Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Miami), and Ken Mehlman, the former Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), who came out in August 2010, which made him one of the most prominent openly-gay figures in the Republican Party.

Mehlman serves on the board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the Proposition 8 suit. Reports have him spending the past several months lobbying fellow Republicans to garner support for the brief.

Former governors Jane Swift (Massachusetts), William Weld (Massachusetts), Christine Todd Whitman (New Jersey), and Jon Huntsman, Jr. (Utah) also signed. Huntsman—who supported civil unions but opposed gay marriage during his unsuccessful 2012 GOP presidential bid—last week wrote an article (“Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause”) in which he likewise re-examined his earlier opposition. (See the related story in this week’s Agenda NATION section, Page 11).

The Proposition 8 case already enjoys the backing of Theodore Olson, the former Bush Solicitor General who is also one of the suit’s two lead attorneys.

The brief—which was written by Reginald Brown, who worked in the Office of White House Counsel under George W. Bush and Seth Waxman, a Solicitor General under President Bill Clinton—contends that marriage equality fosters family values by allowing the children of same-sex couples to grow up in two-parent homes, advancing traditional (and conservative) values that include “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”

This stands in stark contrast to the language contained in the RNC official platform, which supports amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”

The brief cites prior Supreme Court decisions that are popular with conservatives, including the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling that lifted campaign financing restrictions, and District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 Second Amendment ruling that overturned a law prohibiting handgun ownership.

The signers of the legal brief have placed themselves squarely against Boehner and rest of the House Republican leadership, which has approved the expenditure of tax dollars to defend DOMA.

In turn, those House leaders find themselves increasingly going against public attitudes towards marriage equality, which polls suggest have shifted dramatically in just the past 10 years.

In 2003, roughly a third of Americans said they supported same-sex marriage; today a majority favor it, while recent polls indicate that roughly 70 percent of voters under 30 years old support gay marriage. The strongest opposition is to be found in the geographic South.

Dean Trantalis, a longtime LGBT rights activist who served as co-chair of Americans for Equality, said the brief reflects a change in prevailing attitudes.

“The long-held grip on the American psyche is now dripping through the fingers of the right-wing,” he said. “Respect for individual freedom has always been an American ideal, Democrat or Republican.”

Trantalis, who in the mid-1990s worked successfully to enact and defend passage of Broward County’s Human Rights Ordinance, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and is now a candidate for Fort Lauderdale City Commission, applauded the strategy of “Changing hearts, then changing minds,” and asked, “[Fort Lauderdale] Mayor [Jack] Seiler, are you next?”

CLIFF DUNN

Along with who will be receiving his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. come January, one of the most compelling political questions about 2013 is what, if anything, the U.S. Supreme Court will “do” about the volatile and divisive issue of same-sex marriage.

High Court watchers say that the justices were expected to privately discuss marriage equality on Monday past, and at press time for the Florida Agenda there was speculation they could decide as early as yesterday, September 25, as to whether they would take up the constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal law that denies financial benefits to gay couples, and possibly a second case relating to California’s Proposition 8.

Although oral arguments and a legal decision by the Supremes wouldn’t be handed down until next year (if at all), the justices are well aware of the political consequences—to both major parties—of even ruminating on the topic six weeks from a presidential election.

The legal “balls” in the air for the court to consider, should they so choose, concern whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection nullify the California statute, as well as DOMA, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

In New York State, a woman challenged the federal law, saying it selectively and unfairly treats same-gender couples who have been lawfully married in their own states. In a separate but related item, the justices could also decide the constitutionality of Prop. 8.

In the case of the DOMA appeal, Edith Windsor had lived with her partner, Thea Spyer, as a couple in New York since 1967. They married out of state in 2007, at a time when New York State didn’t recognize same-sex marriage. When Spyer died three years ago, she left her estate to Windsor, who was required to pay around $360,000 in federal taxes on the inheritance, because the feds don’t acknowledge her “legal” status—even though New York now permits gay marriage.

Although a federal judge ruled in Windsor’s favor, her attorneys have asked the justices to hear the case now, leapfrogging the standard appeals process. “Edie Windsor, who recently celebrated her 83rd birthday, suffers from a serious heart condition,” said her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. “Edie cannot yet receive a refund of the unconstitutional estate tax that she was forced to pay simply for being gay. The constitutional injury inflicted on Edie should be remedied within her lifetime.”

Last spring, a Boston-based federal appeals court struck down a key part of DOMA. The court ruled that the federal government cannot deny benefits to same-sex couples who were married in states where gay marriage is legal.

Enacted in 1996 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, DOMA prohibits federal recognition of marriage equality, and says that states cannot be compelled to recognize such marriages contracted in other jurisdictions.

In the District of Columbia and six states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York— marriage between two persons of the same gender is legal. In Washington state and Maryland, similar laws have been enacted, but voters have a chance to affirm or reject these measures in ballot initiatives this November (see the related story in this issue’s POLITICAL DESK, Page 11).

Five states—Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—have legalized civil unions. Four—California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state—have established domestic partnerships, which provide many of the same rights as marriage, although in the last instance, lawmakers passed a full marriage law which is the subject of a November voter referendum (see above).

Wisconsin provides limited benefits under domestic partnership laws, and Maine voters will decide in November whether to maintain similar benefits, or go for the Full Monty for such couples (see POLITICAL DESK story, Page 11).

The remaining 33 states, including Florida, offer no such provisions. There are three other appeals that challenge the 1996 federal law, including 17 married or widowed men and women who are suing for their federal benefits and recognition. The high court could decide to wait until the appeals process has been exhausted before allowing a full review by the justices.

The two eggs in the Supremes’ basket concern separate, bi-coastal cases. In August, a federal appeals court ruled against the California prohibition of same-sex marriage, arguing that it unfairly—and unconstitutionally—singles-out gays. The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8 “works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians” and violates their 14th Amendment protections.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriages were legal, opening the floodgates for 18,000 gay couples to obtain marriage licenses. A subsequent ballot initiative that passed by 52 percent of voters put the kibosh on further same-sex weddings. It also put California in the position of being the only state to first permit, and then prohibit, marriage equality. The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit didn’t decide whether or not gays have the right to marry, they ruled on the voters’ right to make such calls.

Which brings us to the larger question: What will the U.S. Supreme Court do? The justices may decide that a fundamental constitutional right is threatened, and strike down the laws of states that only permit one-man one- woman matrimony. Or they might determine that states must recognize same-gender nuptials performed in other jurisdictions, while letting them keep their own laws intact. They may also wait out the full process of judicial appellate review (which lessens the likelihood of a final ruling in the Windsor decision during Edith Windsor’s natural lifespan).

The Supremes may also decide to wait out the demographic clock, under the assumption that the law will eventually “right” itself, with theoretical passage of the Respect for Marriage Act overturning DOMA, and obviating the necessity of a high court ruling.

What is certain is that both sides will have the first Monday in October—when the court returns from its summer recess—clearly marked on their own calendars.

MONTPELIER, VERMONT — The state of Vermont has joined Connecticut and New York in asking that the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman be ruled unconstitutional.

On Friday, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell said that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) discriminates against same-sex couples, and unfairly denies the, federal benefits.

“These married couples— our friends and neighbors in Vermont—have every right to fair and equal treatment by the federal government,” said Sorrell. “Instead, they are denied Social Security benefits, tax exemptions, and health and retirement benefits.”

The three states filed their briefs in the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case brought by a New York woman who was required to pay $350,000 in estate taxes when her partner died. Last year, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA in court, and several federal judges—including a number appointed by Republican presidents—have ruled the law to be unconstitutional. In June, a federal judge in New York ruled DOMA to be unconstitutional because it intrudes upon the states’ business of regulating domestic relations.

Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.H.

DETROIT, MICHIGAN – Democratic Party officials announced on Saturday their endorsement of marriage equality, and called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Platform Committee for the Democratic National Convention, which gathers next month in North Carolina, met last week in Detroit, and approved the work of a separate group that drafted the platform two weeks ago, which included support for a “plank” that endorses same-sex marriage. That move echoes President Obama’s May announcement in support of marriage equality for all Americans.

The platform, a broad statement of the Democrats’ priorities on defense, the economy, and social issues, affirms the party’s “movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples.” Foretelling opposition from religious conservatives, the platform adds, “We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.”

In addition, the language calls for the repeal of DOMA, the 1996 law that was signed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Five federal courts have ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Cory Booker, the Mayor of Newark, New Jersey and co-chairman of the platform committee, acknowledged the “profound indignities” of DOMA’s provisions, as well as the divisiveness of the issue. “At the end of the day, it’ll maybe repel some and attract others to be more engaged,” Booker said.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In spite of Obama Administration efforts to roll back enforcement of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—and despite a federal court ruling last week that the law is unconstitutional—a leading House Republican says that GOP leaders will keep defending the law in court—and spending taxpayer money to do so.

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-California) told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast last week, “The rule of law keeps America strong. When you break down the rule of law, you break down society,” adding, “There can’t be a system where somebody decides, ‘Well, that’s law, but I just don’t like it.’ It doesn’t matter what the issue is. We have a court system. We have a rule of law we go through. And I think you have to go through the system.”

House Republicans have been defending DOMA since March 2011, when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called it unconstitutional, and ordered the Justice Department to stop defending it.

By JUSTIN FLIPPEN

As a former official voting delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, I’m proud to see the Party of the People continue to stand for the equality of ALL the people of our nation, and move towards adopting marriage equality in the official party platform. Democrats recognize that our national community is truly a family and has many members, including LGBT Americans. President Obama’s leadership on—and the Democratic support of—LGBT equality are unparalleled in history.

The passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, legal efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the advocacy that we LGBT Americans have the right to civil marriage and an equal and full seat at the table of American society, are all a direct result of persistent and successful efforts of grassroots and equality advocates, President Obama’s leadership, and Democratic congressional support.

Democratic support of LGBT equality, economic relief for the middle class, protection of our environment and national resources, development of clean and renewable energy, social justice, civil rights, and women’s rights are just a few of the important reasons to support the Democratic Party.

In 2012, we voting Americans owe a duty to ourselves and our posterity to re-elect President Obama, and to re-elect and elect Democrats to the Senate and House of Representatives.

Justin Flippen is a native South Floridian and the former Vice Mayor of Wilton Manors. He currently works for the Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention and Visitors Bureau promoting tourism-based economic development and marketing.