Obama Administration Files Brief Asking SCOTUS To Strike Down DOMA Section 3

Jim Burroway

February 25th, 2013

Last Friday, President Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, filed this brief in United States v. Windsor, urging the Supreme Court to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. Section 3 is the portion of the law which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages which are lawfully performed by the states.

The brief argues that the case before the Supreme Court deserves heightened scrutiny due to the long history of discrimination that gays and lesbians have experienced throughout history. This argument is in keeping with the Justice Department’s announcement in 2011 that it would no longer actively defend DOMA in Federal Court. After laying out the reasons for examining the law under heightened scrutiny, Verrilli contends that DOMA fails that test.

But in an interesting twist, Verrilli also recognized that the Court has long been reluctant to apply heightened scrutiny. If the Court says that the proper standard for evaluating DOMA is the “rational basis” standard — which is highly deferential to Congress’ decision-making — then the Defense of Marriage Act would survive constitutional muster. But Verrilli also contends that the U.S. Supreme Court, in striking down state sodomy laws in 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, the court already chose a standard that goes above “rational basis,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor called “a more searching form of rational basis.” And under this view, DOMA would fail the test:

To the extent sexual orientation may be considered to fall short in some dimension [to apply  heightened scrutiny test], the history of discrimination and the absence of relation to one’s capabilities associated with this particular classification would uniquely qualify it for scrutiny under an approach that calls for a measure of added focus to guard against giving effect to a desire to harm an”unpopular group.”

Section 3 would fail to satisfy any such analysis,largely for the reasons it fails heightened scrutiny.Like the law struck down in Romer (Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting gays and lesbians from seeking anti-discrimination protections in state and local laws), Section 3 is “at once too narrow and too broad.” It imposes a “broad and undifferentiated disability” on the same narrow class of people at issue in Romer — gay and lesbian people — by denying effect to their state-recognized marital relationships across the entire spectrum of federal law. And the asserted rationales are sufficiently “far removed from” the effect of the law — particularly given its breadth — that they should not be credited as valid justifications.

The brief concludes:

 BLAG (Br. 58-59) makes an appeal to this Court to allow the democratic process to run its course. That approach would be very well taken in most circumstances. This is, however, the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society. It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest. The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated.

Fritz Keppler

February 25th, 2013

Not being a lawyer, I’m curious about one aspect of the current cases before the Supreme Court compared with Loving vs. Virginia. To me, the arguments against interracial marriage back then are tediously similar to those against same-sex marriage. I was wondering, back in the 1960’s, if there was an explicit religious exemption permitting churches which objected to solemnizing the sin of miscegenation (as it was then called), or was it simply understood that a church could do what it wanted. And may a church with such an objection still have a legal standing in refusing the marriage? (I realize that such churches are subject to societal disapproval of such a stand, but I’m referring to the law.)

Jim Hlavac

February 25th, 2013

The Democrats and the president had ample opportunity to repeal the entirety of DOMA during their control of congress in the first 2 years of the current administration. Not only did they not do so, but Obama is on record during his run for office saying he was not for gay marriage. Then he said it was a state matter — which from a guy who thinks everything is a federal matter is funny in itself. Now, he’s merely saying the government is not going to defend the law, but, well, if it stands, OK, I guess. Still, now that gay folks’ court cases have pushed the president into the corner, and now he decides to evolve on the issue, is hardly cause for me to jump up and down with glee he’s on my side. Sure, he wants my vote and my money, but instead of acting himself, he passed the buck to the Supreme Court, to put distance between him and the issue. Oh please, we’re a political football to this man, and so many gays now are “ooh ooh, he’s against DOMA!” He’s no such thing.

Meanwhile, I don’t want Section 3 overturned by a court — I want every last jot and tittle of this law repealed — and alas, the president did not lead, but followed, weakly, too little, too late.

Hunter

February 25th, 2013

I’d rather have Section 3 overturned by the Supreme Court — that’s final. If the law is repealed, another one can always be passed again.

occono

February 25th, 2013

I wish they were asking for heightened scrutiny in that brief. Why not? By “reluctant”, does that mean the court explicitly out-ruled heightened or they just avoided it?

Rob

February 26th, 2013

They are asking for heightened scrutiny. But they are saying if the Court does not think heightened scrutiny is appropriate, DOMA should fail under a more searching rational review test. This is called arguing in the alternative, where lawyers argue a case under several premises.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1964: "Homosexuality In America"

Today In History, 1965: Gay Rights Advocates Picket the Civil Service Commission

Today In History, 2003: U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Nation's Sodomy Laws

Today In History, 2013: U.S. Supreme Court Declares Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

Today In History, 2013: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeal of California's Prop 8

Today In History, 2015: U.S. Supreme Court Legalizes Marriage Equality Nationwide

Born On This Day, 1951: Lance Loud

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.