Tag Archives: ZZ: Dragovich v. Department of the Treasury

Reuters: When considering Romer, the Supreme Court found the Colorado constitutional amendment to be extremely broad and unjustified because it took away even the most basic protections for homosexuals. “That’s not the case with marriage,” said Dale Schowengerdt, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which has supported the prohibition on same-sex marriage in California.

Ed Whelan at National Review Bench Memos: Notwithstanding its many defects, the First Circuit’s opinion ruling against DOMA provides additional reasons for the Ninth Circuit to grant en banc rehearing of Judge Reinhardt’s anti-Prop 8 ruling in Perry v. Brown . . .

William Duncan at National Review: It may be a commonplace observation, but it certainly applies here: Why was a written Constitution necessary if constitutionality is merely a function of judicial preferences?

Dale Schowengerdt appeared on the The Hugh Hewitt Show to discuss the issue. | MP3 audio 5:41 mins

National Review Bench Memos: One good thing that can be said about a federal district-court ruling last week against the Defense of Marriage Act is that the ruling explodes Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s (already implausible) claim that his anti-Prop 8 opinion this past February in Perry v. Brown rests “on narrow grounds.”

Dale Schowengerdt appeared on the Janet Mefferd Show to discuss the ruling. | MP3 audio 12:50 mins

CaliforniaHealthLine.org: Meanwhile, the Alliance Defense Fund — a group that opposes gay marriage — said the ruling likely will be appealed. Dale Schowengerdt, the group’s legal counsel, said, “This will end up at the Supreme Court at some point, and we’re confident and hopeful that the [Defense of Marriage Act] will be upheld” (Sacramento Bee, 5/26).

MinnPost (“Gay marriage: Judge overturns DOMA, stepping up pressure on Supreme Court”): She also cited a 1996 US Supreme Court decision on a Colorado anti-gay initiative that found gays and lesbians are protected from “burdensome legislation that is the product of sheer antigay animus and devoid of any legitimate governmental purpose.” That argument is outrageous, says Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports DOMA. “To say that a law that was passed by overwhelmingly by Congress … to say that that’s the product of animus is — I don’t know how to say it — it’s unbelievable,” he says. “It’s just unbelievable that a judge would be making that sort of value judgment against the entire government, the Congress, and President Bill Clinton.” “Every civilization throughout history has found that marriage involves a man and a woman, and we’re confident that once the Supreme Court has this case, they will find there’s no animus and that the opposite sex was granted in a rational basis,” he says.

LiveInsuranceNews.com: However, an Arizona group against gay marriage called the Alliance Defense Fund has asserted that the ruling made by the judge will be appealed. This could mean that the current regulations will be held over a number of months, or perhaps even years. Legal counsel for the group, Dale Schowengerdt, said that this case will, at some point, find itself before the supreme court, and that the group is both hopeful and confident that the current law will be held in place.

Alaska Dispatch: She also cited a 1996 US Supreme Court decision on a Colorado anti-gay initiative that found gays and lesbians are protected from “burdensome legislation that is the product of sheer antigay animus and devoid of any legitimate governmental purpose.” That argument is outrageous, says Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports DOMA. “To say that a law that was passed by overwhelmingly by Congress … to say that that’s the product of animus is – I don’t know how to say it – it’s unbelievable,” he says. “It’s just unbelievable that a judge would be making that sort of value judgment against the entire government, the Congress, and President Bill Clinton.” | Dragovitch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury

HeraldNet.com: The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona group that opposes gay marriage, said Friday the ruling will surely be appealed. That would keep the existing policy in place for months if not years. “This will end up at the Supreme Court at some point and we’re confident and hopeful that the law will be upheld,” said Dale Schowengerdt, the group’s legal counsel.

Wilken said that two federal laws used to deny the same-sex spouses the right to buy long-term care insurance “do not bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.”