The government does not contend that there are legitimate government interests in "creating a legal structure that promotes the raising of children by both of their biological parents" or that the government's interest in "responsible procreation" justifies Congress's decision to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Since DOMA was enacted, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and the Child Welfare League of America have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting because they concluded, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.

Labels: Barack Obama, DOMA, government interest in marriage

posted by Eve at 1:27 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

During the third day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, the associate justice hopeful was asked -- in a sideways manner -- about the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Iowa senator Chuck Grassley asked Sotomayor whether same-sex marriage is under federal jurisdiction, especially timely with a case to repeal California's Proposition 8 making its way through the court system.

Grassley mentioned the case Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 ruling that Minnesota's laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Sotomayor replied that she could not comment on the matter, because of the pending marriage cases in states across the country, as well as the federal case heading in the Supreme Court's direction. She also said that she had not reviewed Baker, but offered to read the case and speak about it Thursday.

Labels: courts, DOMA, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 12:55 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

President Obama, who said as a candidate that he would seek repeal of a law denying federal recognition of same-sex marriage, has angered gay rights groups with court arguments portraying the law as a nondiscriminatory measure that "preserves scarce government resources."

The Justice Department's filing with a federal court in Santa Ana was the administration's first statement on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that denies federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples. Those benefits include joint tax filing, Social Security survivors' payments and spousal immigration status.

The law also allows states to withhold recognition of same-sex marriages performed in another state or country.

Obama called the law "abhorrent" during the presidential campaign and said he would work to overturn it. He has not presented any such legislation to Congress since taking office, however. ...

The Justice Department issued a statement saying Obama wants the law repealed "because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system." ...

But the department also defended the 1996 law's restrictions. Its court filing steered clear of the justification of the law it had offered under President George W. Bush: that it promotes a traditional form of marriage best suited for procreating and raising children.

Labels: DOMA, Obama

posted by Eve at 3:09 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

[Jon Pahl is Professor of the History of Christianity in North America at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. He recently edited and published An American Teacher: Coming of Age and Coming Out, the Memoirs of Loretta Coller (Infinity Publishing, 2009). ]

A recent article in The Atlantic and recently released Lutheran documents give good reasons to revisit the status of gays and lesbians across American society. Unfortunately, few commentators to date have addressed the most troubling development of the past few years: the growth of DOMA Laws, or "Defense of Marriage Acts." These laws are forms of religious violence. ...

5) DOMA Laws confuse legislation with religion, and violate the First Amendment, as Ann Pellegrini and Janet Jakobsen have argued. It is entirely permissible (although ethically subject to scrutiny) for private communities to shape the boundaries of association in whatever ways members agree upon. It is a violation of the First Amendment's protection of free association to inhibit by law some forms of association that pose no harm to the common good, and a violation of the freedom from an established religion when religiously-inspired exclusions are written into law.

6) DOMA Laws perpetuate an association of sex with power, and thereby do damage to any sacramental sensibility that might remain in association with even heterosexual marriage. As Hendrik Hartog and other historians have shown, marriages have shifted in the modern era from patriarchal patterns of coverture to social contracts in which couples seek mutual fulfillment. Such contracts might be compatible with a sacramental sensibility, since they entail pledges of sexual fidelity and commitments to share social resources and responsibilities, along with (one might argue) other gifts of God. DOMA Laws associate sexual fidelity with legislated forms of coercive power, and inhibit the deep trust and mutuality intrinsic to modern (and sacramental) marriage. They establish hierarchies of relationships, and associate heterosexual unions (and sexual practices) with dominance.

Labels: DOMA, religion

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:06 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Today, the legal organization GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) filed a lawsuit challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, in pertinent part, denies same-sex married couples every single Federal benefit related to marriage. The suit, brought on behalf of eight married couples and three widowers, is the first concerted, multi-plaintiff to Section 3 of the Act, which denies spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees’ and retirees’ benefits, and the issuance of passports. It is also the first suit in which plaintiffs who were married in their state of residence applied for federal benefits and were denied them.

The plaintiffs’ claim is a powerful one, and it’s hard to imagine how one could write an intellectually honest opinion rejecting it.

The complaint (PDF) in the suit claims that the statute “is motivated by disapproval of gay men and lesbians and their relationships, an illegitimate state interest.” It’s clear from the language that the attorneys are relying principally on two Supreme Court precedents, Department of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973) and Romer v. Evans (1996). Those cases, together, show that DOMA can’t withstand constitutional scrutiny. (Two Federal Court of Appeals judges have recently arrived at a similar analysis.)

Labels: DOMA, Romer v. Evans

posted by Eve at 5:32 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The legal advocacy group that successfully argued for sex-same marriage in Massachusetts intends to file suit here on Tuesday seeking some federal benefits for spouses in such marriages.

The target is the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. That law denies federal benefits, like Social Security survivors’ payments, to spouses in such marriages. ...

The suit, to be filed in Federal District Court in Boston, does not challenge a separate provision of the act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Information about the suit is posted on the advocacy group's web site.

Labels: DOMA, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 4:55 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT