NAACP files Brief against DOMA

The NAACP continues their support of gay marriage by filing a brief against DOMA

The Washington Post reports:

The 73-year-old civil rights organization was founded to battle racial discrimination in the courts. No surprise, then, that the LDF was at the Supreme Court last week fighting for the Voting Rights Act. But it also had no problem arguing that the struggle for marriage equality for same-sex couples is in line with the battle against the “separate but equal” doctrine that blocked blacks from pursuing the American dream.

In the brief:

Of course, the nature of discrimination against gays and lesbians differs fundamentally from de jure racial segregation, just as racial discrimination differs from discrimination based on sex and other suspect classifications to which heightened scrutiny applies. But DOMA and other laws that purposefully infringe on the rights of gay people are analogous to the racial caste system effectuated under “separate but equal” in an important respect: they create and perpetuate a social hierarchy that is premised on the superiority of one group over another. 

By virtually any measure, gays and lesbians have been subjected to systemic discrimination throughout our nation’s history, resulting in their ongoing subordination as a class. And DOMA’s express purpose is to create and perpetuate a hierarchy that disadvantages gay people based on their sexual orientation…..

Read the entire brief here

The Obama Administration will file a Friend-of-the-Court brief in support for Marriage Equality

This is some huge stuff, so check it out

Administration officials say the Justice Department will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage to resume in California, wading into the protracted legal battle over Proposition 8 and giving gay-rights advocates a new court ally. 

After first suggesting it would not get involved, the Obama administration will file a friend-of-the-court brief late today in support of the two gay couples who launched the fight over the issue four years ago, the officials said. Today is the last day for filing briefs in support of the couples' position.

Again... Huge

Read it here

The Obama Administration files Brief to Shut Down DOMA

This is huge!

The Obama administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court on the reasons why DOMA is unconstitutional.

Here's more:

Filed in United States v. Windsor, a case challenging Section 3 of DOMA, the administration said “gay and lesbian people have been subject to a significant history of discrimination in this country,” and argued that laws targeting individuals based on their sexual orientation should face additional scrutiny by courts reviewing them.

In the brief, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli asked the court to uphold a federal appeals court ruling that found DOMA to be unconstitutional:

Section 3 of DOMA violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional.

The brief also mentions Prop 8 and other marriage bans in the country. Again, this is huge stuff, my friends.

source

House GOP filed a brief Urging the Supreme Court to uphold DOMA

The House GOP has started the DOMA fight.

They have filed a brief asking SCOTUS to defend DOMA.
Here's the scoop from Buzzfeed:

The House leaders argue that in addition to the federal reasons, the Congress could act for the same reasons many states have acted to ban same-sex couples from marrying. They wrote:

There is a unique relationship between marriage and procreation that stems from marriage's origins as a means to address the tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unintended and unplanned offspring. There is nothing irrational about declining to extend marriage to same-sex relationships that, whatever their other similarities to opposite-sex relationships, simply do not share that same tendency. Congress likewise could rationally decide to foster relationships in which children are raised by both of their biological parents.

Finally, the House Republican leaders argue that laws classifying people based on sexual orientation should not be scrutinized more closely by courts, as is done with other types of laws under the Constitution's equal protection guarantees, because "the histories of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, and legitimacy are different."

Whatever. The money they are wasting on this is truly ridic. Too bad it will amount to nothing.

If you want to check out the brief, I have it after the jump

READ: The Amicus Brief Supporting the DOMA Repeal

133 Democrats filed a brief to repeal DOMA
Amicus Brief on DOMA
source

Department of Justice filed its defense of DOMA

Yesterday, the Department of Justice filed its defense of DOMA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Chris Geidner helps break it down:


In its defense of the 1996 law, the government today stated:

DOMA is supported by rationales that constitute a sufficient rational basis for the law. For example, as explained below, it is supported by an interest in maintaining the status quo and uniformity on the federal level, and preserving room for the development of policy in the states.

When DOMA was enacted, the institution of marriage had long been understood as a formal relationship between a man and a woman, and state and federal law had been built on that understanding. But our society is evolving, and as is well-established, the “science of government . . . is the science of experiment.” Over the years, the prevailing concept of marriage has been challenged as unfair to a significant element of the population. Recently there has been a growing recognition that the prevailing regime is harmful to gay and lesbian members of our society. That recognition has prompted ongoing dialogue and change in many states, with some states opting to authorize same-sex marriages and other states opting for other forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. Still other states have reexamined their legal systems and reaffirmed their support of their preexisting concept of marriage and provided that their constitution or laws authorize only marriages between a man and a woman. In the end, the large majority of states today do not recognize same-sex marriage.

Despite that "ongoing dialogue," the government asserts three reasons to justify DOMA's continued validity:

1.    Congress Could Have Rationally Concluded That DOMA Promotes A Legitimate Interest in Preserving a National Status Quo at the Federal Level While States Engage in a Period of Evaluation of and Experience with Opening Marriage to Same-Sex Couples.

2.    Congress Could Reasonably Conclude That DOMA Serves a Legitimate Federal Interest in Uniform Application of Federal Law Within and Across States During a Period When Important State Laws Differ.

3.    Congress Could Reasonably Have Believed That by Maintaining the Status Quo, DOMA Serves the General Federal Interest of Respecting Policy Development among the States While Preserving the Authority of Each Sovereign to Choose its Own Course.

If you would like to read the brief, please go here

The House of Obama is seeking to fix DOMA

The House of Obama is taking action by filing court papers against DOMA. However, they still have to defend it, because it's law.

It's not cute, but that's the reality.

Another no so cute piece is the DOJ are trying to throw out a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging DOMA. Why, you may ask? Well, again, it's the law.

Yet the same filing says the Justice Department will defend the statute in this case because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional.

"The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, because it prevents equal rights and benefits.

The department is obligated "to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court. The Justice Department cannot pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one administration's policy preferences," Schmaler added.

The law, often called DOMA, denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

"DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage," according to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West. The administration also disavowed past arguments made by conservatives that DOMA protects children by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. "The United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA's constitutionality," lawyers argued in the filing.

So in all, it's not pretty. However, they are working to overturn it and hopefully they can do it soon, and do it right.

source

Law Dork weighs in On the DOMA Drama

Chris Geidner is known as the blogger, Law Dork. He is a lawyer who writes about LGBT issues, policies and the fun stuff (politics). He's also very realistic which I greatly appreciate.

Today, Chris provided some interesting info that is...well interesting. John Aravosis, from AMERICAblog has been a strong critic of Obama for a hot minute (actually longer than that). However, yesterday the truth was in the pudding or rather in Chris' blog.

According to Chris, John's piece about Barney Frank throwing us under a bus is very misleading and borderline false.

I'll share:

Soon thereafter, John Aravosis published a piece that just went round the bound. I have tried to keep my blog as forward-looking as possible, but it’s clear that Aravosis’s heavy popularity at his blog and media contacts have allowed his false statements about what the filing means to push the debate into the twisted, contorted view he is giving it.

The two main problems that I have with Aravosis’s coverage are:

1. His continued misstatements regarding whether Justice should have filed a brief in this case.
2. His “comparing us to incest and pedophilia” claim is overstated and does not withstand any serious, legal scrutiny.

Also...

The brief does not ever use the words “incest” or “pedophilia.” And, by the way, the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), the standard for diagnosis, defines pedophilia as involving “sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).” Under that definition, there is not even a case involving pedophilia appearing in the brief at all — which is likely the reason that no mainstream publication has repeated that claim.

Despite all that, this is what Aravosis concluded this evening about Chairman Frank:

Barney thinks the language of the brief was great. He even, between the lines, defends the invocation of incest and pedophilia.

No, he clearly did not think the brief was great, as his statement made clear. Moreover, he never defended anything that isn’t in the brief, despite your constant claims to the contrary.

It is Aravosis’s spreading of this continued falsity — particularly to demean the smart, legitimate statements of members of Congress — that lead me to continued reporting about why it’s false.

This was helpful and scary. AMERICAblog has a lot of readers and followers, and after I commented on other articles, I was attacked...Big time.

I had to use the Phoenix Force up in there just to survive.

Anywho, with so many folks following that blog, I hope they are checking up on the content. What Chris reveals is disturbing, however I'm glad there's someone looking out for our best interest.

Please check out his blog, here

Barney Reads the DOMA Brief and...

Barney wasn't feeling the DOMA brief. But after reading the brief, he actually understood what was going on.

He said:

“Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.”

“It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example. It is the President’s job to try to change the law, but it is also his obligation to uphold and defend it when it has been enacted by appropriate processes. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.”

“I strongly opposed DOMA when it was adopted and I will continue to fight for changes. I support very strongly the lawsuit brought by the people at Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) that make the cogent argument that DOMA’s provision denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages blatantly violates the equal protection clause. And I will work with the Obama administration as they have promised to do to enact laws protecting LGBT people from hate crimes, from job discrimination, and from discrimination in the military. I will also be critical when I think inappropriate language is used. But after rereading this brief, I do not think that the Obama administration should be subject to harsh criticism in this instance.”

Great to hear, Barney. Now if most of us took the time to read the brief, it could shed some light on the matter. However, many folks didn't read it and jumped in the Hater pool with their clothes on. We can't go on like this, peeps.

Source