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

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:56:36 +0000

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.

By: occono

occono — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 02:30:51 +0000

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?

By: Hunter

Hunter — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:31:30 +0000

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 If the law is repealed, another one can always be passed again.

By: Jim Hlavac

Jim Hlavac — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:02:07 +0000

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Meanwhile, I don’t want Section 3 overturned by a court — I want every last jot and tittle of this law repealed — and alas, the president did not lead, but followed, weakly, too little, too late.

By: Fritz Keppler

Fritz Keppler — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:59:02 +0000

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.)