Two hundred two members of Congress signed on to a brief in the Windsor case asking the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act which bars federal marriage rights for same-sex couples. All of Minnesota’s congressional Democrats signed the brief except Rep. Collin Peterson.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, as well as Reps. Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum, Rick Nolan, and Tim Walz signed the brief.

Peterson has a long record of opposing equality for LGBT people.
He voted against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (2009), voted against ENDA (2007), voted for banning same-sex marriage in the federal constitution (2006, 2004), voted to ban gay adoptions in Washington, DC (1999), and voted against hate crimes legislation (2009).

In the brief, the 212 Congress members argued that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Here are some passages from the brief:

Although we support legislative standing to defend legislation in appropriate cases, we disagree with the arguments made by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group in DOMA’s defense. Having repeatedly urged Congress (including the Speaker of the House) to revisit DOMA legislatively, we believe it important to dispel the notion that BLAG speaks for the entire Congress on the merits. It does not. In fact, many Members believe that Section 3 of DOMA is a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s equalprotection guarantee and should be struck down.

***

Virtually every aspect of DOMA and its legislative history—the lack of objective, rational fact-finding to connect the exclusion of married same-sex couples to a legitimate federal interest; the sweeping exclusion of gay men and lesbians based on a single identifiable trait; and the open desire of some to express disapproval of that minority group—distinguishes it from routine Acts of Congress. None of the arguments advanced in its defense is sufficient. DOMA lacks the required rational connection to a legitimate federal interest

***

We are part of the communities we represent, and our understanding reflects the same arc of experience, making clear what should have been apparent in 1996. Put simply, DOMA is one of those laws that was enacted when “times * * * blind[ed] us to certain truths,” but that “later generations can see * * * in fact serve only to oppress.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 579 (2003). It must be struck down.