Skip to comments.Justice Dept. Asks Supreme Court to Review 2 Petitions in Hopes of Overturning DOMA
Posted on 09/13/2012 3:11:29 PM PDT by NYer
September 12, 2012|6:13 pm
The specific part of the law that attorneys for the Justice Department want the court to focus on is Section 3, which they say violate the rights of legally married same-sex couples, arguing that it treats them differently than married heterosexual couples.
In 2007, New York resident Edie Windsor married her long-term partner Thea Spyer in a ceremony in Canada. But after Spyer died, Windsor had to pay approximately $363,000 in federal estate taxes to the U.S. government. The 2010 case is one of the two the government is asking the high court to review.
Additionally, the Justice Department also wants the court to review a case involving six same-sex married couples and a widower from various states that were denied federal benefits. In all, the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review four cases that could eventually lead to part or all of DOMA being ruled unconstitutional given that federal courts in several states have issued such opinions.
DOMA, which was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1996 and signed into law by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, has come under fire during the Obama administration when in 2011 the Justice Department announced it would no longer defend the law. However, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group was appointed by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives to defend the law.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been defending Windsor and announced a multiple friend-of-the-court brief on Monday. Parties include the city of New York; the states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont; 145 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives; the Partnership for New York City, a major business lobby; the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; and labor, legal, and religious organizations.
will if stare decisis matters then doma should stand given the obamacare ruling.
What is this, equal protection? Yawn. The federal government is under no obligation to recognize gay marriage just because certain states do. It can have one standard, whereby only real marriages are special instead of heterosecual and homosexual couples both being special.
By the way, if this challenge succeeds someone should bring suit against the federal government for “discriminating” against polygamy or friendships by granting married coupled of various combinations special status. And if they fail, the government has no authority and we are free to rebel.
Actually, we’re always Freetown rebel.
Actually, we’re always free to rebel.
A little misleading. DOMA was not the least big controversial.
It passed with 342 Yeas, 67 Nays in the House and 85 Yeas, 14 Nays in the Senate.
Had it been a constitutional amendment, it would've been passed easily and sent to the states ratification.
They're a bit thick. That is the whole idea.
Isn’t Obama sworn to uphold the laws, not undermine them?
Equal protection?? Except we’re talking apples and oranges.....and apples and apples. There’s is no way to make them “equal”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.