Tag Archives: Topic: Federal DOMA

“Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Justice has chosen not to defend DOMA based on the well-established rationales that Congress cited when it passed the law.”

Presidential Prayer Team: “Though the brief acknowledges that ‘in the end, the large majority of states today do not recognize same-sex marriage,’ Alliance Defense Fund Legal Counsel [Dale Schowengerdt] criticized the defense as being ‘deficient,’ asserting that the Department of Justice is giving a weak defense of DOMA because the president is in favor of its repeal.”

Liberty Counsel: “Liberty Counsel filed an Amicus Brief in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The brief states that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes and law is clearly constitutional.”

LGBTQ Nation: “The nation’s largest LGBT legal group –- Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund — took in $17 million in its most recent fiscal year, 2009, compared to $677,360 in 1987 and $26 million in 2008. By comparison, the right-wing’s largest political group -– Focus on the Family — expected $100 million in 2010 and the largest right-wing legal group – the Alliance Defense Fund — has an annual budget of $32.7 million in 2009, according to its website.”

David B. Cruz, The Defense of Marriage Act and Uncategorical Federalism (January 21, 2011). William & Mary Bill of Rights, Vol. 19, March 2011; University of Southern California Law Legal Studies Paper No. 11-1. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1745003

“This paper addresses federalism objections to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Ordinarily, the federal government accepts state’s determinations of what couples are validly married. Section 3 of DOMA, however, fashions a broad exception for same-sex couples, who are definitionally deemed not to be in “marriages.” In addition to equal protection and full faith and credit challenges to DOMA, litigants have made constitutional federalism arguments. In Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the federal trial court accepted one such argument, though in a form that seemingly categorically denies the federal government authority over marital status. This paper critiques such categorical federalism arguments and finds more plausible a more nuanced, uncategorical federalism argument against DOMA Section 3 based on existing constitutional precedents, an argument that relies on a confluence of factors to conclude that this provision of federal law is unconstitutional.”

Pacific Justice Institute: “The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is heading to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In two separate cases, one brought by same-sex couples married in Massachusetts and the other by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a judge struck down a challenged section of the law which defines marriage for the purpose of interpreting federal statutes, regulations and administrative bureaus whenever the word ‘marriage’ or ‘spouse’ is used.”

LifeSiteNews: “Pro-family advocates are urging a federal appeals court to overturn a federal judge’s ruling that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. They have also criticized the Obama Justice Department’s defense of DOMA as inadequate and a deliberate recipe for failure.”

FRC Press Release: “Family Research Council and the Thomas More Society yesterday submitted an amicus curiae (‘friend of the Court’) brief in a lawsuit brought by advocates of same-sex ‘marriage.’ The brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, and it urges the Court to reverse a July 2010 decision by Judge Joseph Tauro that struck down the federal definition of marriage contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).”

USCCB: “In a letter to Congress, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), outlined the ‘principles and priorities that will guide the public policy efforts’ of the Bishops’ Conference during the new legislature. The letter was mailed to all members of Congress on January 14.”

Christian Post: “The Department of Justice on Thursday filed an appeal in two cases in defense of the federal Defense of Marriage Act . . . Alliance Defense Fund Legal Counsel [Dale Schowengerdt] criticized DOJ’s defense as ‘deficient.’ ‘The administration refuses to make the argument that the Congress made [when establishing DOMA],’ asserted Schowengerdt.”

The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday told a federal appellate court that the Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the constitutional rights of same-sex married couples or their survivors and is a constitutional exercise of authority by Congress.

Politico: “Gay groups are furious with a Justice Department brief defending — though in quite narrow terms — the Defense of Marriage Act, which candidate Obama, unlike even his Democratic rivals, had pledged to repeal in full.”

The Boston Globe: “Gay-rights activists, acknowledging they will lose momentum for their agenda in Congress when Republicans assume control of the House this week, are pinning their hopes for further gains in 2011 on a series of incremental measures and a host of federal court cases.”

Sam Stein writing at The Huffington Post: “Whereas conventional wisdom holds that legislative victories beget future ones, there was no clear sense that the president’s signing of DADT’s repeal would have such a domino effect.”

Christian Post: “[Jordan Lorence], senior counsel for Alliance Defense Fund, doesn’t believe a legislative repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is going to happen in the next two years. Similar to the American public, Lorence believes that lawmakers are divided over same-sex marriage. ‘I think there would be significant reluctance both in the House and Senate to repeal DOMA,’ he asserted.”

Lambda Legal: “The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hear oral arguments this Friday, December 17, in a Lambda Legal case that could result in the next major court decision regarding the federal so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act,’ or DOMA.”

Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “The lawsuit, filed in May by three same-sex couples, challenges state law requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. The couples’ main claim is that the 1997 Minnesota ban on gay marriage violates their rights to due process, equal protection and freedom of conscience and association under the state Constitution.”

KTTC [AP]: “Minnesota’s solicitor general says a 1971 state Supreme Court ruling that banned gay marriage is still strong enough that a judge should dismiss a Hennepin County lawsuit seeking to let gays marry in Minnesota.”

The Minnesota Independent: “The Family Council argued that it should be part of the lawsuit, in part, because if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, it will cost them millions to fight same-sex marriage. The court said the group has no standing to defend DOMA . . . The Minnesota Family Council attempted to enter the lawsuit with the help of James Dobson’s Alliance Defense Fund, an evangelical Christian legal group.”

CitizenLink: “We all knew that President Obama’s Department of Justice was doing everything it could to undermine federal law prohibiting open homosexuality in the military, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act. But to hear DOJ Assistant Attorney General Tony West openly admit that they are vetting their arguments with their ‘liaison’ to the gay activist community, and promising not to make any ‘offensive’ arguments, goes beyond the pale.”

DOMA and the Constitution
Mark P. Strasser, 58 Drake L. Rev. 1011 (2010)

“Part II of this Article addresses some of the constitutional issues implicated in the full faith and credit provision and discusses some of the different possible constructions of the provision and the ways that these different constructions would make the provision more or less vulnerable to constitutional attack. Part III analyzes some of the special constitutional difficulties associated with the provision defining marriage for federal purposes. The Article concludes that DOMA is vulnerable on a number of grounds, some peculiar to the jurisprudence associated with the substance of the respective provisions and others that might invalidate both provisions. While it is not clear whether the Supreme Court will ultimately hear a constitutional challenge to DOMA or, if so, how the Court will rule, it is clear that the analysis offered by the Court will likely have important implications for individuals’ rights and for state and congressional powers.”

Edge Boston: “The Defense of Marriage Act faced a two-pronged attack on Nov. 9 as two separate organizations and sets of lawyers, representing different plaintiffs, filed lawsuits in federal court challenging the federal definition of marriage.”

Michael Foust writes at Baptist Press: “‘This is a full-court press against marriage, and it’s one to be concerned about,’ [Dale Schowengerdt], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes the suits, told Baptist Press.”

OneNewsNow: “‘As it stands, there are [at least] four separate lawsuits…challenging the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court right now,’ explains [Dale Showengerdt], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). ‘They’re all basically the same. It represents kind of a full-court press by the left against the Defense of Marriage Act.’”

Christian Post: “The American Civil Liberties Union and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders both filed lawsuits Tuesday on behalf of same-sex couples trying to receive federal benefits from their partners. In GLAD’s case, the advocate group filed a lawsuit on behalf of five same-sex couples and widowed partner across three states – Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire . . . ADF Legal Council [Dale Schowengerdt] explained that GLAD put multiple plaintiffs on the lawsuit because ‘their legal arguments are a little bit thin and they focus a lot on the stories of these couples and basically make an emotional appeal.’”

Boston.com (AP): “The lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Connecticut and New York and come just months after a federal judge in Boston struck down a key component of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.”

“Ms. Pedersen and Ms. Meitzen plan to file a lawsuit Tuesday against the government in an effort to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples.”

Lambda Legal: “Lambda Legal yesterday filed a brief in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a lawsuit that could result in the next major court decision regarding the constitutionality of the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act,’ also known as DOMA.”

Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management, No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW (N.D. Cal.)

ACLU Press Release: “Edith ‘Edie’ Windsor, who shared her life with her late spouse, Thea Spyer, for 44 years, will file a lawsuit against the federal government tomorrow for refusing to recognize their marriage. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ (DOMA), a federal statute that defines marriage for all federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Windsor and Spyer were married in Canada in 2007, and were considered married by their home state of New York.”

CitizenLink: “[Dale Schowengerdt], legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said the same attorneys successfully defended the law during the Bush administration. ‘Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department has basically thrown the case, and has refused to make the winning arguments,’ Smith said. ‘Arguments that just a few years ago they were making to district court cases and similar challenges to DOMA and winning.’”

Dallas Voice: “‘We should be strengthening and protecting marriage, not subjecting it to a hostile takeover through the courts,’ said Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, in a press release. ‘If the Obama administration won’t defend marriage, we are ready and willing to do so.’”

Christian Post: “In an effort to breathe new life into legislation to protect marriage nationwide, the ranking Republican in the House Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas, and his legal team have filed two motions in defense of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act . . . ADF asserted, ‘The DOJ’s practical abdication of its own proven legal arguments, plus its ambivalence on whether it will even appeal, warrants intervention to ensure that widely-supported Congressional legislation like DOMA receives a fair and vigorous defense.’”

LezGetReal: “On 5 October, the Alliance Defense Fund claimed that the DoJ is not mounting any kind of defense of DOMA. [Dale Schowengerdt], a lawyer for the ADF stated ‘We should be strengthening and protecting marriage, not subjecting it to a hostile takeover through the courts. If the Obama administration won’t defend marriage, we are ready and willing to do so.’”

Keen News Service: “The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) announced Tuesday that it had filed motions on behalf of Smith in the U.S. District Court for Boston, where Judge Joseph Tauro had ruled—in two cases—that one part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.”

“[The president has left] the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unprotected in the hands of activist judges. When a federal district court ruled in July that DOMA was unconstitutional, it fell to Obama’s Justice Department to fight for the law . . . As of this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) hadn’t lifted a finger to appeal the ruling . . . Together with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the GOP’s ranking member [Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)] on the House Judiciary committee is petitioning the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts to intervene.”

“Alliance Defense Fund attorneys representing U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, the ranking Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, filed two motions to intervene to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in federal court Tuesday.”

Equality California press release: “August 23 – Today, the California State Senate approved a joint resolution, AJR 19, calling on the U.S. Congress and President Obama to immediately repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which explicitly forbids the federal government or any federal agency from recognizing state-sanctioned marriages between same-sex couples.”

Scott Titshaw, A Modest Proposal: To Deport the Children of Gay Citizens, & Etc.: Immigration Law, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Children of Same-Sex Couples (August 18, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1661276

“This article explores the language, context, legislative history, and purposes of both DOMA and relevant sections of the INA. In the absence of reported cases on point, it reviews opinions in related areas, such as the recognition of children born to concubines or second-wives in polygamous marriages. Finally, it analyzes each relevant section of the INA in turn, concluding that DOMA does not proscribe recognition of parent-child relationships resulting from same-sex marriages under most, or all, of the sections.”

Leonard Link: “One question that immediately began buzzing around the blogosphere was whether the Obama Administration’s Justice Department will appeal these rulings. Others are when will the rulings take effect, and do they have any application outside of Massachusetts? Within the past few days, some answers have begun emerging.”

San Diego Gay and Lesbian News: “An amended judgment was entered on Aug. 18 in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). Simultaneously, a stay was issued pending any appeal by the government to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. It supersedes a judgment entered by the federal district court on Aug. 12, 2010.”

“It’s been 40 days since U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled—in two cases—that the federal benefits provision in the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional . . . the government has not yet decided whether it will appeal.”

Robert P. George writing at The Washington Examiner: “Two federal judges who have recently issued rulings adverse to the historic definition of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife show what results-oriented jurisprudence is all about. One judge claimed to base part of his ruling on a federal constitutional requirement that Congress yield to the states on their definition of marriage. The other judge ruled that the constitution requires that a state’s democratically enacted definition of marriage be struck down.”

Richard A. Epstein writing at Forbes: “The key element of the DOMA decision was its categorical conclusion that there was no conceivable rational basis to stop same-sex couples from marrying. Given the speed with which electrons travel cross-country, that Massachusetts decision gave Judge Walker a powerful signal that there was no obvious doctrinal obstacle in taking the same path. His action was emboldened by the responses of elected officials charged with upholding the federal law. None of them want to take on this battle.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “The emotional plea was rejected by [Douglas Napier], an attorney who defended Prop. 8, as a distraction in a case that he said should have been about voters’ rights. He called the ruling, which was the result of a nonjury trial in January, a legal ‘bump in the road.’ ‘Those that want to uphold traditional family values are going to be outraged,’ said Napier, of the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz. ‘The whole nation is watching, and the whole nation should be quaking to think that a single judge sitting in California can reverse the will of 7 million voters.’”

“What if Democratic leaders are saving their most controversial issues until after November when voters are powerless to do anything about it? That’s a question more insiders are beginning to ask as big ticket legislation on spending, the military, global warming and campaign finance sit curiously idle.”

Chuck Donovan writing at The Heritage Foundation / The Foundry: “Perhaps the biggest news out of last week’s reaction to a federal judge striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was pundits’ response to the way the Obama Administration ‘threw the fight.’ . . . The collusion boils down to this . . . “ | Via The Engage Family Blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

. . . If states have authority under the 10th Amendment to define marriage, why are federal courts, like the one in San Francisco, not immediately upholding state constitutional definitions of marriage, such as the one currently under attack in California? Is it because California voters chose to define marriage the ‘wrong’ way as one man and one woman? . . .

NPR: “Advocates are hoping two cases now in the federal courts may signal a turning point in the fight for gay marriage. A federal court in Boston ruled last week that same-sex married couples deserve federal recognition. That case, along with another in California, is likely to move the battle closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Family Research Council: “Family Research Council (FRC) Senior Vice President Tom McClusky released the following statement in response to a ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro declaring the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act DOMA was enacted in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate and was then signed by President Bill Clinton.”

“A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.”

Telegram: “Mr. Hopkins, the recipient of two Bronze Stars and other medals, is married to a man. Because the federal government doesn’t acknowledge same-sex marriage, the 65-year-old veteran may now be forced to choose between recognition for his longtime military service and perpetual rest with his longtime partner. … ‘This is another example in which the federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the marriage rights of our Massachusetts citizens,’ Attorney General Martha Coakley said in a statement Friday. ‘A veteran who has served our country with distinction should not be forced to choose between receiving the military honor that he deserves or being with the person he loves.’”

ADF Attorney Daniel Blomberg writing at Speak Up Movement / Church: “So what if Congress forces the military makes homosexual behavior normal? Isn’t that just a military issue? Why should average Americans care at all? Because this change will change America. Why is that? For at least two reasons. First, the military is a repository of American culture—it reflects, in a single institution, many of the highest values our society respects. … [T]he second point: perhaps the only institution more deeply respected and widely recognized as the training ground for inculcating societal values than the military is marriage. And normalizing homosexual conduct in the military will not only—as an ACLU attorney recently stated—be a cultural precursor to normalizing homosexual ‘marriage,’ it will actually create the perfect storm for destroying the primary federal law protecting marriage—the Defense of Marriage Act (‘DOMA’).”

“Because I believe in committed — I believe that committed gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country, I have called for Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. (Applause.)”

LifeSiteNews: “The White House announced Monday that they would expand the definition of a 1993 federal law, with the result that many employers in all 50 states would be forced to extend family and medical leave to homosexual partners. Pro-family advocates, however, are denouncing the policy as blatant illegality, saying that it clearly contravenes the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).” | The Atlantic Wire has a round-up of related opinion pieces.

The Hill: “Gay rights activists see a chance to get the gay marriage issue back into the midterm campaign conversation thanks to an upcoming court ruling in California. … Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said his organization fully intends to make it a campaign issue this year, and said he is confident it will work, at least in California’s statewide races. The group is fully engaged in both the race for governor and attorney general. ‘I think the issue of marriage equality is clearly going to drive turnout here in California,’ Kors said.”

Yahoo! News: “‘The case in Massachusetts is much more incremental and strategic,’ said [Jordan Lorence], a senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm helping to defend Prop. 8. ‘It’s like a rifle shot. The California case is much more massive in its magnitude. More than a rifle shot, it’s like a big bomb.’”

WCCO (AP): “Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman is asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks gay marriage in Minnesota.”

The Minnesota Daily: “A lawsuit seeking to end Minnesota’s ban on same-sex marriage faces tough odds in court and lacks the broad support that propelled successful efforts in five other states . . . ‘There are both legal and political reasons to believe that this lawsuit is a very risky roll of the dice,’ said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota law professor who supports same-sex marriage.”

City Hall: “Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said yesterday that she plans to sue the federal government over the Defense of Marriage Act if she becomes New York’s next attorney general.”

Associated Press: “Mary Bonauto, an attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said in federal court in Boston on Thursday that the law denies gay couples an array of federal benefits, including the financial advantages of filing joint tax returns.”

Associated Press: “A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman is slated for its first court hearing.”

Washington Times: “‘Gay people serving in the military, defending our country, should have the same rules and same opportunities as any other Americans, no more and no less,’ Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, told The Washington Times . . . Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, said he thinks DOMA prevents the military from giving benefits to gay spouses . . . ‘It’s most likely under the current scenario that the military would follow DOMA because the marriage license held by a same-sex couple is a state-conferred right and not a federal-conferred right.’”

Jackie Gardina, The Tipping Point: Legal Epidemics, Constitutional Doctrine, and the Defense of Marriage Act (November 11, 2009). Vermont Law Review, Vol. 34, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1503989

“Using Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point as a jumping off point, this brief article discuss whether the Supreme Court has reached a tipping point with regards to equal marriage and its benefits. The article suggests that to determine whether the Court has reached the tipping point – and more specifically, whether the constitutional question has reached the Court at the right time – requires that one look beyond the Court’s precedent and examine the ‘national conversation.’”

Charisma: “A coalition of faith leaders want to put a referendum on the November ballot to allow District of Columbia residents to vote on the definition of marriage . . . ‘We are confident the court will clear the obstacles to the citizens initiative powers that have been imposed by the city council-and that we can begin gathering signatures on our initiative right away,’ said Austin Nimocks, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing Stand4Marriage DC.”

SF Civil Rights Examiner: “. . . Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has pushed aside the President’s proposal and introduced a bill repealing DOMA but only granting federal rights to married same-sex couples. As of January 1, 2010, this would only cover four New England states and Iowa. Congressman Nadler has abandoned his President at the behest of marriage-only activists, groups like Marriage Equality, USA, who believe including anything but marriage would undermine the drive for same-sex marriage.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “The Justice Department ‘should continue to defend (the law) the way that it used to,’ under the Bush administration, said attorney Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization that represents sponsors of California’s ban on same-sex marriage in a separate case. Campbell cited the department’s 2004 filing in the Orange County case, which said the Defense of Marriage Act served the government’s ‘plainly legitimate interests in encouraging the optimal social arrangements for procreation and child-rearing.’”

Boston Herald (AP): “In court documents filed Tuesday, the couples say the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits given to other married couples . . .”

Washington Times: “‘Bills of this sort are designed to forward a political agenda and silence critics, not combat actual crime,’ said Erik Stanley, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian advocacy group.”

New York Times: [A] march planned for Sunday on the Washington Mall is exposing deep divisions among gay rights advocates around the country as they grapple with whether to continue pushing for gains state by state, or embrace a more aggressive strategy to pressure the Obama administration and Congress for federal action.”

Chicago Tribune: “Backers of gay rights are pushing to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. They are buoyed by a growing acceptance of same-sex marriage — six states have made it legal — and changed political realities in Washington: For the first time since the law passed in 1996, Democrats are in charge of both the White House and Congress.”

Dale Carpenter writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “Today the DOJ filed its motion to dismiss in another case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, Gill v. OPM, pending in a Massachusetts district court. It argues that DOMA is constitutional because (1) there is no basis for applying heightened scrutiny to the denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples married in Massachusetts, and (2) DOMA is rationally related to the federal interest in preserving the status quo and in following longstanding practices while letting states experiment with same-sex marriage.”

Politico: “Efforts by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act have suffered a setback with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) — the most powerful gay pol on the Hill — expressing opposition to Nadler’s tactics. ‘It’s not anything that’s achievable in the near term,’ Frank told the Washington Blade, echoing remarks made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in April.”

California Progress Report: “On Monday the California Assembly approved a resolution urging the United States Congress and President Barack Obama to repeal the nation’s Defense of Marriage Act following a contentious, partisan debate.”

Law.com: “The challenge, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, is one of four lawsuits in different parts of the country that ask federal courts to strike down all or parts of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) . . . Although he called the Massachusetts challenges ‘well-planned and coordinated,’ Brian Raum, senior counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports the 1996 law, said, ‘I think all four suits are serious challenges. We are confident they ultimately will not prevail. The federal law is clearly constitutional.’”

CitizenLink: “On Monday, a U.S. District judge threw out a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on a technicality. DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman . . . Brian Raum, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said he’s confident, no matter what happens, that DOMA will stand. ‘Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship,’ he said. ‘Americans understand and believe that there’s more to marriage than that.’”