Tag Archives: Topic: Federal DOMA

Christianity Today: “A judge dismissed a California gay couple’s lawsuit claiming that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, a week after U.S. Justice Department lawyers defended the law . . . Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group that has joined the government in defending the federal marriage law, said Carter was right to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. The federal government cannot be sued in state courts, Raum said.”

LifeSiteNews: “A federal court Monday threw out a lawsuit filed against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman . . . ‘Marriage is not just any two people in a committed relationship. Americans understand and believe that there’s more to a marriage than that. Therefore we are pleased that this challenge to the federal law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been dismissed,’ said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum. ‘If another lawsuit is filed against the federal DOMA, we are confident that it will be found to be constitutional.’”

Christian Post: “A federal judge on Monday threw out a lawsuit filed against the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that the suit had been improperly filed in state court before it was transferred to his jurisdiction . . . Though the gay Southern California couple that filed the lawsuit last December will likely refile, Brian Raum, senior counsel for Alliance Defense Fund, hailed Monday’s ruling. ‘[W]e are pleased that this challenge to the federal law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been dismissed,’ said Raum.”

On Top Magazine: “The Obama administration has prevailed in its attempt to dismiss a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Los Angeles Times reported . . . The Christian-based Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which as intervenor in Smelt is also defending DOMA, promoted the argument that there is a government interest in ‘responsible procreation’ . . . ‘It is very disappointing that the [Justice Department] has rejected the idea that kids do best in homes with a married mother and father,’ ADF attorney Brian Raum told Baptist Press.”

Houston Chronicle (AP): “U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled the case — the first of several pending challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act — must be refiled in federal court . . . Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group that has joined the government in defending the federal marriage law, said Carter was right to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. The federal government cannot be sued in state courts, Raum said.”

ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum on The Word 100.7 with Janet Mefferd: Prop. 8 & DOMA

The mp3 is just over 10 minutes.

On Top Magazine: “Lawyers for the Christian-based Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) said Monday that President Obama’s defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was not ‘optimal’ . . . ‘It is very disappointing that the [Justice Department] has rejected the idea that kids do best in homes with a married mother and father,’ ADF attorney Brian Raum told Baptist Press.”

OneNewsNow: “A new brief filed yesterday by Justice Department lawyer Scott Simpson declares that the Obama administration ‘does not support DOMA as a matter of policy’ . . . ‘It’s really troubling that the federal government has taken a position that federal policy is bad policy,’ says [Brian Raum]. ‘Federal DOMA was passed overwhelmingly and represents the prevailing view of the people of the United States that marriage is between a man and a woman and that’s the optimal environment for raising kids,’ Raum contends.”

Christian Post: “The Justice Department on Monday said the Obama administration does not support the 1996 federal law that bans same-sex marriage . . . Traditional marriage supporter Brian Raum, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, isn’t surprised by the administration’s opposition to the marriage law but calls it a tragedy. ‘The administration stands against the vast majority of Americans who have voted decisively to protect marriage every time marriage is on the ballot,’ Raum said. ‘Though it’s no surprise that the administration opposes DOMA, it’s a tragedy for America’s children that our leaders don’t believe that every kid has a right to both a mom and a dad.’”

“President Barack Obama insisted Monday he still wants to scrap what he calls a discriminatory federal marriage law, even as his administration angered gay rights activists by defending the it in court.”

Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society: “The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), designed to protect the heterosexual married, reflects the federal sovereign’s decision to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking to marry, rather than to apply one marriage standard across sexual-orientation lines. Such a facially discriminatory statute fails constitutional review, an example of majoritarian, discriminatory bias. The Constitution protects, as a bedrock principle, the individual’s right to autonomy and self-determination in matters of marriage without regard to sexual orientation. Should the right to marry depend upon sexual orientation or upon broader concepts of equality and self-determination? This article answers these questions by using and extending the concept of structural reasoning.”

“Ordinarily the Solicitor General is expected to defend federal laws against such challenges. But the Solicitor General works for President Obama, who has signaled that he does not wish to defend laws that restrict same-sex marriage.”

Washington Blade: “Allison Herwitt, HRC’s legislative director, told the Blade on Friday that her organization has been communicating with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to introduce DOMA repeal legislation that would complement a similar bill expected in the House.”

“The ABA policy-making House of Delegates passed by an overwhelming voice vote a resolution calling on Congress to repeal a section of the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal marital benefits and protections to lawfully married same-sex couples.”

“Among the high-profile items on the 555-member House’s calendar are resolutions that: Urge repeal of a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act . . . ”

SSRN: “As William Faulkner explained, we must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. This article analyzes the continuing constitutional struggle for civil rights on the basis of sexual orientation, concentrating on the constitution state’s critique of its constitution. Connecticut is currently at the forefront of recognizing civil rights. Connecticut has ruled that discrimination against gay and lesbian persons is subject to intermediate scrutiny, which has historically been used to review laws that employ quasi-suspect classifications such as gender. Civil marriage for same sex couples is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. New York recognizes marriages by same sex couples legally entered into in another jurisdiction. California’s Proposition 8 renders the Californian Constitution in conflict with itself. This analysis addresses the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s impact on same sex couples that marry in Connecticut. It also considers comparative constitutionalism and the evolution of nondiscrimination measures.”

Michael Foust reports at Baptist Press: “‘There’s obviously a desire on behalf of the homosexual activists to take down the federal definition of marriage because it stands in the way of their ultimate goal, which is to impose same-sex marriage on the entire country,’ Brian Raum, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes ‘gay marriage,’ told Baptist Press. ‘As long as the federal government retains the definition of marriage between a man and a woman, there will forever be a reminder that they haven’t achieved their goal.’”

Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers: “When it passed DOMA, Congress effectively restricted existing constitutional rights. DOMA poses a serious threat to fundamental personal privacy rights. By creating a sex-based classification, DOMA impedes on a person’s right to choose a spouse. Additionally, a couple married in one state will not enjoy the freedom to travel as a married couple and hold themselves out as such in sister states. Decisions regarding whom to marry and where to live fall within the penumbra of privacy rights. By creating a sex-based discrimination, DOMA impedes on a person’s right to choose a spouse.”

Dale Carpenter writes at the Volokh Conspiracy: “The federal complaint in Commonwealth v. HHS was filed yesterday by Massachusetts, which is asking for federal recognition of its same-sex marriages, not for the invalidation of all state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Massachusetts makes two federalism-based constitutional claims against Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal law . . . ”

OneNewsNow reports: “‘That’s [Obama's] political preference [that DOMA be overturned],’ [Mat Staver] says. ‘There’s no doubt in my mind, absolutely no question at all, that he and some of those in the Department of Justice are coordinating with individuals — and perhaps even the attorney general in Massachusetts — to literally bring these lawsuits and have a very weak defense so that the courts will ultimately overturn it without having the politicians and the president go on record showing that they are in favor of same-sex marriage.’”

CNSNews: “President Barack Obama wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and abolish the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy concerning homosexuals in the military, according to Elaine Kaplan, general counsel of the White House Office of Personnel Management.”

“The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said.”

Michael Foust reports at Baptist Press: “‘DOMA actually protects the right of states to determine social policy with respect to marriage,’ Babione previously told Baptist Press. ‘It allows states the freedom to protect marriage between a man and a woman and not to have the same-sex marriages of other states imposed upon them. . . . Repealing DOMA actually does the opposite of protecting states’ rights. . . . Repealing of DOMA also would do untold damage to the benefits that marriage brings to society. It would open the way to defining marriage and its value out of existence.’”

Baptist Press:
Byron Babione, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal group which opposes “gay marriage,” called Obama’s statement on DOMA “a nonsense statement.

“DOMA actually protects the right of states to determine social policy with respect to marriage,” Babione told Baptist Press. “It allows states the freedom to protect marriage between a man and a woman and not to have the same-sex marriages of other states imposed upon them. … Repealing DOMA actually does the opposite of protecting states’ rights. … Repealing of DOMA also would do untold damage to the benefits that marriage brings to society. It would open the way to defining marriage and its value out of existence.”

Reuters: Are they kidding us? Domestic partnership benefits WITHOUT health insurance because of DOMA?” gay fundraiser and activist David Mixner told POLITICO in an e-mail. “It is like rubbing salt in the wound.”

AP: We all have to acknowledge this is only one step,” Obama said in the Oval Office, where he signed a memorandum that made incremental changes to benefits offered to the same-sex partners of gay federal employees.

NOW: “The National Organization for Women calls on President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to withdraw the U.S. Department of Justice brief filed in support of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to publicly renounce this discriminatory law.”

Lillian Kwon reports in The Christian Post: “Alliance Defense Fund attorney Brian Raum plans to join in the motion. ‘We’re confident that the arguments the U.S. government is making are correct,’ Raum told The Christian Post. ‘Hopefully, the court will dismiss [the case] . . . The plaintiffs say DOMA violates the Constitution and no federal court found that to be the case so far,’ he added.”

ACLU: “We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in a brief filed today in Smelt v. United States, a lawsuit brought in federal court in California by a married same-sex couple asking the federal government to treat them equally with respect to federal protections and benefits.”

Andrew Sullivan writes at the Atlantic Monthly’s Daily Dish: “John Aravosis gets ahold of the government’s brief in a California DOMA case. He writes: ‘It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. ‘”

Equality California: “We are outraged the Obama Administration filed a brief defending the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act — a law Obama promised to repeal when running for President. It is unacceptable that he is defending DOMA instead of supporting its repeal as unconstitutional.”

“Well in my committee, yes, but in the House and Senate, that’s a different question,” Conyers told the Michigan Messenger in a weekend interview published Tuesday about the prospects for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Chelsea Schilling reports at WorldNetDaily: “The White House has scrubbed President Obama’s central pledge to the homosexual community from its website – his promise to quash the federal Defense of Marriage Act.”

Lillian Kwon reports in the Christian Post: “‘The people of California want marriage to remain as the union between one man and one woman; they made their voice clear last November at the polls,’ said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum in a statement released Friday. ‘Yet this lawsuit begs the court to nullify the voices of more than 7 million California voters, as well as put an end to the federal law on marriage.’”

. . . ” this lawsuit begs the court to nullify the voices of more than 7 million California voters, as well as put an end to the federal law on marriage. We are pleased to be able to represent ProtectMarriage.com”

Chicago-Kent Law Review: “The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages for any purpose under federal tax law. The primary justification for this rule is that tax benefits should be preserved for opposite-sex married couples. This article points out the absurdity of such a rule, given that tax law is not intended to privilege married couples, but instead is intended to measure their taxable income fairly on the basis of their status as related parties. Because the justification fails, DOMA as applied to federal tax law is unconstitutional.”

“A final vote on May 5 is poised to confirm a preliminary vote last week by D.C.’s city council to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ performed in other states . . . Some commentators have speculated that it could also incite Congressional discussion over the (DOMA).”

Phyllis Schlafly: “If judges overrule Congress and the majority of the American people by striking down DOMA, it would be the same type of judicial supremacy that occurred 152 years ago in the famous Dred Scott case.”

Ellen Goodman writes at the Seattle Times:
“First, Iowa joined Massachusetts and Connecticut. Then Vermont followed with the first legislative approval. And a bill was just introduced in New York, where people cringe to find themselves lagging behind Iowa. This is all part of a careful state-by-state strategy. But as a side effect, it’s producing more Americans with a strange dual citizenship: Married in the eyes of Iowa, single in the eyes of Washington. Eligible for a pension, health care, family leave in the eyes of the state; ineligible in the eyes of the feds. DOMA is doing it . . .”

. . . Alliance Defense Fund attorneys submitted a motion to intervene Friday in a lawsuit that seeks to eliminate the California amendment as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

CNSNews: White House press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed on Friday that, as promised on the campaign trail, President Obama “would” work to repeal a Clinton-era law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which protects states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states.

ADF attorney Amy Smith appeared on the Don Kroah show to discuss the GLAD suit challenging the Federal DOMA.  The mp3 runs just over 8 minutes.   Related:  ADF: Activists filing lawsuit against DOMA want judge to redefine marriage for …

Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists,” said . . . Brian Raum. “America continues to overwhelmingly reaffirm that marriage is one man and one woman. Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?”

“. . . the federal Defense of Marriage Act makes them ineligible to file joint tax returns. Now Ritchie, Bush and more than a dozen others are suing the federal government, claiming the act discriminates against . . . and is unconstitutional . . . ”

“Reinhardt’s order declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, while Kozinski’s order didn’t reach the ‘hard question’ of the statute’s constitutionality.”

“Activists following the Obama proposal said it could become controversial within the gay community if Congress refuses to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, but moves ahead with legislation providing marriage-related rights only for civil unions and domestic partnerships . . .”

Christian Post: Thousands of traditional marriage supporters have contacted President Obama to voice opposition to his plan to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Almost immediately after the inaugural ceremony, the new administration updated the Whitehouse.gov website with a full …

The Phoenix City Council on Wednesday will consider making the city just the second in Arizona to offer its residents a domestic-partner registry.

Jan LaRue has this commentary on the Culture and Media Institute: President-elect Barack Obama told an MTV interviewer the day before the election that he believes “marriage is between a man and a woman,” and that he’s “not in favor …

This Note finds its impetus in the particular struggle over child visitation rights between Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins. Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins (“Miller v. Jenkins”) involves the interaction of Vermont, Virginia, and federal law. The case carries significance as more individuals leave the homosexual lifestyle, as more same-sex unions come to an end, and as the states wrestle with how to legally deal with the consequences.

This is just one more piece of evidence confirming that support for marriage and other conservative social values remains high.

The Boston Herald has the AP report on the ruling. Additional coverage is available through Google News. The text of the opinion is here: Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 2006 VT 78 (Aug. 4, 2006). Liberty Counsel has issued a press release indicating that the case begins a showdown between the states over same sex unions. While over at Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh argues that the case does not implicate the Federal DOMA.

Many of the same Republican Senators who touted federalism when voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment had no problem voting to force taxpayers to fund the slaughter of the unborn.

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a distinct, concrete injury in fact resulting from the alleged untimely publication of the Marriage Amendment.

Additionally, the definition of marriage becomes key in implementing numerous programs of the modern federal welfare state. In such a welfare state, a national definition of marriage is unavoidable.