UPDATE: Nadler answered the question that I discussed with Joe earlier:

Q: Can you explain the value of submitting DOMA repeal legislation even if it’s not likely to pass this session? Finally putting the issue on the table seems to give us a sense of which elected officials are with us — and who isn’t there yet. What are other benefits from your perspective?

Nadler: First, even if DOMA repeal is not likely to pass this session, we must begin the fight if we are eventually to repeal it. Introducing repeal legislation, as Pam said, enables us to find out who is with us and who we need to work on. We begin now a period of outreach and political organizing to bring about eventual passage. The sooner we begin the fight, the sooner we will prevail.

Join people over at Americablog for a live chat with Congressman Jerrold Nadler at 2PM ET. This thread is an open chat for reactions. Some information on what will be discussed is below.

REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed, and the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to that section.

SEC. 3. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: Ӥ 7. Marriage

”(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

”(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.”

Rep. Nadler noted on his own site that the range of supports is indicative of the need to repeal the law:

Among the bill’s backers are former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law in 1996, and former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA), who first introduced DOMA.  They join the dozens of civil rights organizations and 91 original co-sponsors of the bill who are pushing for a full repeal of DOMA.

Today, President Clinton said: “I want to thank Congressman Nadler for his leadership on this issue, and Reps. Baldwin, Polis, Conyers, Lewis, Velazquez and Lee, for introducing the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives.  Throughout my life I have opposed discrimination of any kind.  When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter.  Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy.”

Today, Bob Barr said:  ”I join with former President Bill Clinton in commending Rep. Jerry Nadler for introducing the ‘Respect for Marriage Act of 2009.’  This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted.  Rep. Nadler’s legislation would also repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and by so doing, remove the federal government from involving itself in matters of defining ‘marriage,’ which historically and according to principles of federalism, are properly state matters and not federal.”

One elected official not supporting the bill is Rep. Barney Frank. Read why below the fold.

Frank has two major beefs with the bill: 1) he fears the timing of the introduction will distract from other LGBT priorities – hate crimes, ENDA, domestic partner benefits for federal employees, and repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” – all of which he says can be accomplished in this two-year Congressional session; and 2) he believes the “certainty provision,” which guarantees that the federal government will recognize legally performed same-sex marriages regardless of which state you live in, is strategically problematic.

Mr. Chairman started by declining to cosponsor the bill, then he said, “Given that there is zero chance of this bill becoming law in the near future, it is a mistake to explicitly introduce this crossing state lines issue.”

By Friday, he was telling Roll Call newspaper , “I do think it can complicate things electorally for Members … People will interpret this as exporting marriage.”

For anyone hoping the new Respect of Marriage Act (RMA) might gain a little traction this Congress, Frank’s statements tilted the toxicity meter. A number of activists lamented that he had given his Democratic and Republican counterparts a perfect reason not to back the legislation.

As I told Joe Sudbay today, if Frank wants to take that POV, he’s entitled, but what can be gained by tossing a bone to the right wing like that? Has he unlearned the use of the appropriate phrase “no comment”? When I attended Equality Alabama‘s gala on Saturday night and witnessed the keynote of civil rights hero and ally Rep. John Lewis, it made me weep wondering why the passion with which Lewis acts on our behalf — talking and walking the walk — is so flaccid among our own leaders; they are content to cocktail party their way to equality. (Read Rod McCullom’s post about Lewis’s inspirational speech.)

In any case, folks should drop by Americablog for the chat. I’ve asked Joe to ask Rep. Nadler to describe the value of submitting repeal legislation even if it will likely fail — people need to hear that putting the issue on the table ensures that elected officials have to show their hand and own their positions. And that is valuable work to open up dialogue between constituents and those pols.

Related:

* Frank bio: Barney Frank’s ‘Left-Handed Gay Jew’ No Tell-All“