DOMA challengers can’t stick government with legal tab, court says

“Gay widower renews call for marriage-based green card”

“High court declines photographer’s appeal in gay marriage case” | Washington Times

Alvaré on Windsor and a federal definition of marriage

Opponents in Utah, Okla. same-sex “marriage” lawsuits clash over impact on kids

Same-sex “marriage” tests state Attorneys General

Federalism as a Way Station: Windsor as Exemplar of Doctrine in Motion

“Advocates hail lightning speed momentum with same-sex marriage” | ABC

Is Eric Holder making up marriage law as he goes along?

Supreme Court asked to hear Conn. DOMA case | Washington Blade

Getting the Facts Wrong: Federal District Court on DOMA | William Duncan

Defense of Marriage Act in trouble?

Liberty Counsel files brief in support of DOMA in Massachusetts case

“The LGBT Movement State of the Union”

Legal Periodical: The Defense of Marriage Act and Uncategorical Federalism

    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:

    “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.”

  • Posted: 01/24/2011
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: , ,

Pacific Justice Institute: DOMA heads to 1st Circuit

Pro-family groups urge appeals to overturn ruling that struck down DOMA

FRC urges 1st Circuit to uphold DOMA

Dolan outlines U.S. Bishops’ legislative priorities for new Congress

Justice Department submits “deficient” appeal to challenges against DOMA

Justice Department files opening brief in DOMA appeal

“Gay groups criticize Justice Department brief”

“Hopes for gay-rights gains shift to courts”

“Gay rights activists’ outlook somber as euphoria over DADT repeal subsides”

DOMA repeal not likely to happen soon despite Biden’s remarks

Court to hear oral arguments in Lambda Legal challenge to Obama Admin use of federal DOMA

MN: Judge hears state, county challenge to same-sex “marriage” ban

Minnesota: State lawyer seeks dismissal of same-sex “marriage” suit

Judge rejects MN Family Council bid in marriage lawsuit

DOJ won’t use arguments that offend “gay” groups

Law Review: DOMA and the Constitution

    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.”

  • Posted: 11/19/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family

  • Tags: , , ,

“DOMA taking more hits”

Left applying “full-court press” against DOMA

Conservatives defend DOMA amid more lawsuits

2 lawsuits challenge US Defense of Marriage Act

GLAD: Same sex couple to sue over U.S. marriage law

Lambda Legal: “Application of DOMA to block health benefits for wife of lesbian federal court employee unconstitutional”

ACLU: “Bereaved spouse challenges Federal DOMA as unconstitutional”

U.S. Congressman steps up to defend DOMA

Texas Republican seeking to intervene in marriage cases

Motions filed to defend federal marriage definition

Texas Representative wants to take over defending DOMA in court from Obama DOJ

GOP rep. wants to defend DOMA in Mass. cases

The key to killing DOMA? Curb appeal

ADF files motion on behalf of high-ranking member of House Judiciary Committee to defend federal DOMA

California legislature officially endorses repeal of Federal DOMA

Law Review: Immigration Law, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Children of 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:

    “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.”

  • Posted: 08/25/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: , , , , ,

New developments in GLAD’s DOMA challenge

MA: Amended judgment entered in GLAD’s DOMA challenge

Clock ticking down on DOMA cases

Robert P. George: What happens when judges decree instead of deliberate

Richard Epstein: Same-sex bombshell overturns Proposition 8

“Prop. 8 judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban”

FRC Action: Congressional “lame-duck” session, if any, should not be used for major legislation

Cinderella Congress: Marriage is worth a real fight

Jordan Lorence: Federal Defense of Marriage Act does not violate states’ rights

Same-sex “marriage” inches toward High Court

Erroneous court decision strikes down federal definition of marriage

U.S. Judge rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

MA: AG cites, laments DOMA in rejection of “gay” veteran’s joint burial

    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.’”

  • Posted: 07/06/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: , , ,

Daniel Blomberg: How harming the military will harm America

    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’).”

  • Posted: 06/24/2010
  • |
  • Category: ADF in the News
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: , , , , ,

Remarks by the President at LGBT Pride Month reception

“Obama Admin to force businesses to give gay partners unpaid leave”

“As midterms near, gay rights activists press same-sex marriage issue”

“Gay marriage fate rests in courts of law, public opinion”

MN: Hennepin County seeks out of same-sex “marriage” lawsuit

MN: “Same-sex marriage lawsuit could set back gay rights effort”

NY AG candidate pledges to sue D.C. over “marriage equality”

Judge hears arguments on federal marriage law

MA: Challenge to federal marriage law heads to court