Rep. Barney Frank on DOMA Ruling

Friday, June 01, 2012

A federal appeals court in Boston ruled unanimously yesterday that the controversial Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, as it discriminates against legally married same-sex couples by denying them the same federal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.

Takeaway Washington Correspondent Todd Zwillich discusses the ruling with Congressman Barney Frank.


Barney Frank and Todd Zwillich

Comments [4]


Did Todd Zwillich get around to asking Barney Frank about wearing hoodies and getting shot?

He is such a weird guy. It is almost impossibel to conduct a friendly interview with him. He wants to argue about everything. There was an old saying about people like Barney Frank; that he could start an argument in an empty room.

Is there anybody in Congress who appears as angry as Barney Frank? Anthony Wiener is gone; Sheila Jackson Lee doesn't seem to qualify, and while I would happily listen if somebody wanted to make the case that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was really the angriest member of Congress, I don't see how anybody could be angrier than Barney Frank. Who will soon begin collecting his Congressional pension. Hopefully he won't deny us the steady stream of quotes and stories about things like gay prostitution rings run out of his kitchen, that we have grown used to.

Jun. 01 2012 11:29 PM

"The Obama administration quite famously refused to defend.."
Not so famous is the question where is it written in the US Constitution that the President and his administration gets to choose what laws to respect and which ones to ignore? Apparently the War Powers Act is another law that the President chooses to ignore.
What laws will President Romney be allowed to ignore?

Jun. 01 2012 08:45 AM
Nikos Retsos from Chicago, Illinois

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston doesn't have the legal authority to re-define the constitution, and those judges admitted in their ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court would have to decide the issue. The appellate judges just threw this hot potato to the Supreme Court. But even if the Supreme Court allows gay couples to call their relationship marriage, and thus enable them to cash in on their partners Social Security benefits, I have no doubts the congress will rewrite the Social Security benefits regulations to exclude them. The Webster's College Dictionary defines marriage as: "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife..."

Would the Supreme Court turn nature's creation, history, culture, tradition, religion, and the moral beliefs of non-gay people upside down, and codify the different lifestyle of some people as marriage? I don't see it happening! Plus, the Social Security fund is going broke, and normal Americans who have treated gay issues as background noise, will then rise themselves in opposition - if they see their Social security safety net raided by interlopers! It will be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back!"

My take on the issue? "We ain't see nothing yet, but I don't expect this gay marriage Trojan Horse to win the race!" Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Jun. 01 2012 08:20 AM
Ed from Larchmont

The court ruling did not say that same sex couples had the right to marry; it didn't say that same sex couples should get benefits in states where it isn't legal; it did say that 'married' same sex couples in states where it is legal should get the same benefits as married couples. Seems like one would have to make this ruling.

Jun. 01 2012 05:53 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.