[Vision2020] The Defense of Marriage Act, Exposed

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>
 <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=917bb2bd/6da1b9d&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787507c_nyt5&ad=LolaVersus_120x60_NoText_June8&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Flolaversus>

------------------------------
June 10, 2012
The Defense of Marriage Act, Exposed

A federal district judge in New York
ruled<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/DOMA-Windsor-ruling-6-6-12.pdf>last
week that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution by
requiring the plaintiff to pay federal estate tax on her same-sex spouse’s
estate, even though opposite-sex spouses are exempt. It follows a string of
other rulings striking down the law in a federal appeals court, two federal
district courts and a bankruptcy court.

With the Obama administration’s
decision<http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html>in
2011 not to defend the law, that task has been taken up with relish by
the Republicans in Congress. Last week in California, their lawyers filed a
brief<http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/06/05/12-15388_Brief_of_Intervenor.pdf>in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging a
district court ruling<http://dont.stanford.edu/Golinski_v_USOPM%28NDCalif_10-0257%29_22Feb2012Order_DOMA_is_unconstitutional.pdf>that
the law violates the Constitution by denying health benefits to the
same-sex spouse of a federal lawyer.

The brief makes the claim that the law’s goals are to maintain consistency
in allocating federal benefits and encourage relationships “that most
frequently result in the begetting and raising of children.” But in fact,
the law thwarts consistency by accepting some state definitions of marriage
and rejecting others. And the Republicans offer no real evidence that
expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex spouses affects
the ability of opposite-sex couples to marry or have children.

The federal courts that have reviewed this law since 2010 have found that
it fails to meet the most elementary test of constitutionality. Under this
“rational basis” test, a statute will be upheld — even when groups are
treated differently — if the law has some reasonable relationship to a
legitimate government purpose.

The Republican brief says the statute “merely reaffirmed what Congress has
always meant” when it refers to marriage: “a traditional male-female
couple.” The federal trial court in California explained, however, that
“tradition, standing alone, does not provide a rational basis for the law.”

The court also cogently argued that the act should be subject to a higher
standard of scrutiny because it discriminates on the basis of sexual
orientation. But even under the most forgiving standard, the Defense of
Marriage Act clearly violates equal protection.

Room for Debate: Fewer Prescriptions for A.D.H.D., Less Drug
Abuse?<http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/09/fewer-prescriptions-for-adhd-less-drug-abuse?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp>



-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120611/d7ad468b/attachment-0001.html>