Obama Administration Urges Supreme Court to Strike Down DOMA

[Hissyspit]

Source: Buzz Feed

Obama Administration Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down DOMA

“The Constitution … requires that Section 3 be invalidated,” Obama's Supreme Court lawyer argues.

posted on February 22, 2013 at 6:54pm EST

Chris Geidner
BuzzFeed Staff

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act's prohibition on recognition of same-sex couples' marriages in a Friday filing, arguing that laws that target gay people should face additional scrutiny by courts reviewing them.

Under such heightened scrutiny, as it is called, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli says that Section 3 of DOMA, which defines "spouse" and "marriage" under federal law as only those marriages between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.

In summary, the administration argues:

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.

Additionally, the administration addresses the question of what should happen to DOMA if the Supreme Court does not agree that such heightened scrutiny applies, writing, "If the Court ... applies rational-basis review, the government has previously defended Section 3 under rational-basis review, and does not challenge the constitutionality of Section 3 under that highly deferential standard." However, the administration adds that the court may consider what has been called a "more searching" form of this rational-basis review, with the lawyers writing:

To the extent sexual orientation may be considered to fall short in some dimension [to have heightened scrutiny applied], the history of discrimination and the absence of relation to one's capabilities associated with this particular classification would uniquely qualify it for scrutiny under an approach that calls for a measure of added focus to guard against giving effect to a desire to harm an "unpopular group."


Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/obama-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-strike-down-doma

[FreeState]

1. Great news

here is to hoping they file a similar brief for the Prop 8 case.

[JackBeck]

2. This is huge, especially in regards to applying heightened scrutiny to gay and lesbian couples.

I love this part:

BLAG makes an appeal to this Court to allow the democratic process to run its course. That approach would be very well taken in most circumstances. This is, however, the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society. It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest. The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated.

[obama2terms]

3. Wonderful!!

Hopefully, next he files a friend of the court brief. We all heard what he said on inauguration day, and if he files that brief on prop. 8 those would be more than just words.

[steve2470]

4. great news ! nt

[steve2470]

5. The Administration's brief is here:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/126827618?access_key=key-2evwwmhv6twg0nk9eshp

[uriel1972]

6. Cautious optimism...

Let's hope the Supremes see reason.

[eggplant]

7. What bothers me the most about all of this...

...is that this really shouldn't be about sexual orientation. Gay people are most definitely allowed to marry, but they have to marry someone of the opposite gender. Two heterosexual men can't marry each other.

The law should be struck down, but it should be because people are being denied the rights of marriage based on their GENDER, not their sexual orientation. Orientation should have nothing to do with the argument. The thoughts and feelings people have, and what they do in private, is none of the government's concern. This is fairly well understood by the courts.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

8. Now they'll have to or have to admit they're judicial activists.

[DonB]

9. How fascist are they?

There are now five roman catholic members of this august body of jurists that have sanctioned the philosophy of benito mussolini, fascism, as noted by Matthew Fox while being interviewed on "The Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show".

Matthew, in answer to a question, expounds on the fascist cult of Opus Dei that is embedded in power centers around the world:

"And in America they're embedded in a lot of media, they're certainly represented in the Supreme Court. Citizen's United happened because of five votes from five Roman Catholics Supreme Court Judges. That Citizen's United thing is about as Fascist an idea you can come up with, the idea that Corporations are people. Mussolini defined Fascism (and it's a quote) as " The marriage of corporations and Government." Well, isn't that what Citizen's United is all about? Tell me that it isn't! That's what I read in it."

I don't have much hope of anything positive coming from those five right wing corporate assholes, but I do hope that they will leave their little pits of corporate religiosity to find a way to do something that has some resemblance of justice. It also may happen as the corporations flock to the money of the gay and lesbian wedding machines causing their serfs on the supreme court to support their fascist corporate masters bottom lines.

[blkmusclmachine]

10. Fri. nite news dump, eh?

Call me ... skeptical.

[iandhr]

11. Next time people say there is no difference between the President at Mitt.

Remember this.

[Larry Ogg]

12. What could be more important then making life easier or harder for gays and lesbians?

No doubt, the 1% predator class is laughing their asses off.

They have it their way, anyway they see fit.

Their destroying the country and the World, and when the spotlight falls on their behavior, the issue for both parties is how to shift attention off of them, and onto some divide and conquer, something or someone who should never be an issue in the first place.

[iandhr]

13. Yes your right

Taking a stand against discrimination is all part a secret plot by the 1%.



If you have gay friends ask them what this means to them. The fact that the President is standing up for their rights in away that no President has done before.

[Larry Ogg]

14. Preying on peoples ignorance and intolerance is amongst the oldest tricks in a predators book...

First they throw up the smoke and mirrors, and fawn the flames of hatred.

Then they have their little puppet shows, where each opposing side is the hero who fights the eternal battle of just and noble causes, but through all the wins, losses, and compromises, the tit-for-tat is only a show that is never supposed to end.

But still, the people become so fixated on the puppet show, they fail to see the predators going through their midst, picking their pockets clean, and stealing all their property.

And the 1% is always for discrimination, unless it's used against them; at which time they put on their little anti-socialism puppet show.

[iandhr]

16. So the President shouldn't stand up against bigotry toward gays?

[iandhr]

17. So was FDR a puppet for fighting for the New Deal?

Martin Luther King for civil rights LBJ for the great society?

[blueclown]

18. I like how the case is U.S. v. Windsor

Yet the federal government refuses to defend the United States' position against Edith Windsor. For all the criticism President Obama gets for not being sufficiently "liberal", he is really sticking his neck out in this case. I'm not all the familar with the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence, but how common is it for a case of this magnitude, in a lawsuit against the U.S. government, for the Justice Department to not defend such a case? Instead, the House appointed its own lawyer, Paul Clement, to defend the case.