We seem to be floundering in our attempt to reach consensus on a Sept. 28 proposal on this topic. Here's an attempt to make a more elaborate case. In a "floor statement," Lieberman opposes a Constitutional amendment, even as he supports the federal definition of marriage that omits gay couples. This establishes that he isn't in favor of option 1, "same sex marriage."
That’s why I voted for DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, in 1996, and why I still support that law today. DOMA makes absolutely clear that marriage under federal law is a status that should be attainable only by one man and one woman, and that any State’s decision to define marriage otherwise has no effect on the definition of marriage under either federal law or the laws of other States. In other words, we already have a federal law on the books that precludes any couple other than an opposite sex one from claiming federal marriage benefits and that prevents one State from seeking to impose its view of marriage on its sister States. A constitutional amendment to that effect is therefore unnecessary at this time. But there is a contemporary reality. Gay couples exist. They also enjoy the rights promised in the Declaration that are the endowments of our Creator. They are not going away. To say that these couples and their children should be denied any legal protections – or relieved of all legal responsibilities – would be unfair.
"This bill is very affordable but more importantly, it is the right thing to do. Many leading employers, including my home state of Connecticut, provide benefits to domestic partners,” said Lieberman. “It’s time for the federal government to catch up as extending benefits to domestic partners is fair and will help federal agencies compete for the most qualified personnel."