TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to strike down existing marriage law

The 1996 law defines marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman.

US President Barack Obama is hoping that the 1996 law will be changed.
US President Barack Obama is hoping that the 1996 law will be changed.
Image: Charles Dharapak/AP/Press Association Images

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has taken another step toward institutionalising gay marriage, formally asking the US Supreme Court to strike down a 1996 law defining marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman.

The request was contained in a legal brief filed yesterday with the US court, whose nine justices will next month review whether or not to repeal the federal Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bans marriage between homosexuals.

The document marks the first time a president has endorsed same-sex marriage rights before the Supreme Court.

According to the filing, the Defence of Marriage Act “violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection” before the law stipulated by the US Constitution.

DOMA “denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples,” read the brief signed by US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

The case before the Supreme Court involves Edith Windsor, a lesbian who married in Canada in 2007 but whose spouse and partner of 40 years died. She was required to pay more than €270,000 ($360,000) in federal estate taxes because she was not considered married under DOMA.

The White House position, however, came under fire from Republicans in the House of Representatives.

In a brief filed yesterday, they insisted they have a legal right to defend the law in the Supreme Court in the absence of a defence from the executive branch.

Last month, 10 US senators urged the court to uphold the act and not to recognise same-sex marriages from other states.

All of these senators had voted for the Defence of Marriage Act and in a friend-of-the-court brief, they said it was inconsistent for the Justice Department to have assured Congress the law was constitutional while it was being crafted in the mid-1990s only to raise questions now.

“The time to speak was in 1996, when Congress gave careful consideration to the need for DOMA,” they argued.

The Obama administration’s decision to challenge the law comes as little surprise. Obama has signalled on various occasions recently that he is that he is in favour of gay marriage.

Inaugural address

During his second inaugural address last month, the president drew parallels between the struggle for gay rights and the Civil Rights movement of past decades.

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,” Obama said.

He also drew a parallel between several watershed struggles in US history: the landmark Seneca Falls convention in 1848; the 1960s civil rights battles; and the Stonewall riots of June 1969, which are widely seen as having launched the gay rights movement.

Obama’s also chose gay poet Richard Blanco to read a specially composed poem at his second inauguration.

Already during his first term in 2011, Obama abolished the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy requiring military recruits to hide their homosexuality, or risk being expelled from the service.

In 2012, he became the first sitting US president to speak out in favour of gay marriage.

This past week, the Pentagon officially extended some military benefits to same-sex partners, but said services like medical coverage would not be offered to gay troops’ spouses because of DOMA.

“One of the legal limitations to providing all benefits at this time is the Defence of Marriage Act, which is still the law of the land,” Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said.

About 17,000 same-sex couples in the armed forces were affected by the decision, including 5,600 active duty service members.

The effect of the DOMA law is to ban gay marriage at the federal level. After victories in several local referendums however, it is now legal in nine out of 50 US states and in Washington DC.

- © AFP, 2013

Read: Creighton can’t predict outcome of referendum on gay marriage >

Read next:

Comments (39 Comments)

  • I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again… Why do we care who marries who?

    Reply
    • Fortunately, most people don’t care. Just a few religious busy bodies. But they are dying out.

      Reply
    • Barry 23/02/13 #

      Most people don’t care as it doesn’t bother them, but that doesn’t stop a few people bitching and moaning about the gays being the devils work and other such utter nonsense.

      This type of stuff is progress and regardless of if these lunatics like it or not they will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

      We can atleast hope that eventually they might treat a fellow human being with dignity and respect and give them equal rights.

      Remember, these same types of people in the past said it was wrong to allow a black man to marry a white women!

      Reply
    • Phil 23/02/13 #

      Oh here we go with the “who cares who marries who” and the “whoever has a problem are just religious nuts” and the “the only ppl who don’t want same sex marriage are oldschool morons”

      I can only see the majority writing in favour of it on the journal because they delete the ppls comments against it.

      And you ppl writing in favour just want a little argument. When someone gives you their opinion you cry and then go looking for attention.

      Reply
    • Aw phil… Bitter are we? The irony in your post is hilarious!!

      Reply
    • Barry 23/02/13 #

      Phil, in fairness to thejournal.ie, they don’t delete comments that appose gay marriage unless they break the rules of the site.

      Reasons would include abusive, personal attacks on other posters etc. thejournal.ie have a very clear comments policy in relation to this – http://www.thejournal.ie/comments-policy/

      If people can’t be civil then they deserve to have a comment removed.

      People in favor don’t want an argument, they merely want equal rights and treatment for our fellow human beings. Is that so much to ask?

      If you feel thejournal is such a big bad news site then one has to ask why are you even here reading and posting on it? clearly you don’t trust it to be impartial

      Reply
    • Interesting comment from someone who hasn’t actually presented an argument. And do you have any proof that the journal is deleting comments? Also polls show that equal marriage rights has popular support, soz bbz

      Reply
    • Interesting observation, if true, that there’s a correlation between anti-marriage equality posts and posts which breach the site rules. But that correlation would say more, I suspect, about the mindset of the anti-marriage equality lobby than it does about thejournal’s politics.

      Reply
    • Ah Phil get over it for feck sake.

      Reply
  • Good news, love is a good thing and should be celebrated .. With so much negativity in the world lets be happy for those who have found someone:)

    Reply
  • Liam 23/02/13 #

    Excellent news, common sense and common decency prevails.

    Reply
    • Dont get too ahead of yourself boy George. The Supreme Court will uphold the defence of marriage act.

      Reply
    • I wouldn’t bet on it Carl. Whilst obviously nutters like Scalia will oppose striking it down, it’ll be Roberts who all eyes will be on and after his recent “defection” re: Health care I don’t think his “vote” is in anyway certain. I think (hope) it’ll be 4-5 in favour of abolishing it.

      Reply
    • Roberts is the linch pin on the vote and he could swing it either way. At the moment he appears to be sitting on the fence about it as he is aiming to ensure the legacy of his court will be one of balancing their constitution against an evolving society. So he really could go either way. This is one of I think three seperate gay marriage cases before the court so its going to be an interesting year at the court!

      Reply
  • I love how the response is basically “you should have opposed this in 1996 when you had the chance”. They actually dont understand the meaning of the world progress.

    Reply
  • Dmc 23/02/13 #

    Im all for same sex marriage but can we put a ban on Liza Minnelli music!

    Reply
  • In the United States, there is a clearer separation of civic and political life from religious dogma. Religion and law never mix well.

    Reply
  • Just to point out another difference on this subject between the US & Ireland.

    Our constitution does not define a marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman, and neither does our High or Supreme Court.

    So this barrier does not exist within Ireland and Article 40 of the Irish constitution, Equal rights for all human persons” should be acted upon by the Government.

    Reply
  • Julie 23/02/13 #

    I would love to see Obama take a step towards a few things he promised at election time, like Guantanamo, over 700 held there through the years 3 have ever been convicted of anything, still over 100 there to this day with no evidence or trial, bags over their heads 24/7 chained and not able to talk to anyone and the rest but its a Saturday morning. But well done for the gay marriage thing my age group really don’t get what take ye so long. It won’t hurt anyone so do these things quickly so we can move on to important business. Like why already there are shipments of Syrian oil arriving in America, hmmm. That will prob be one they don’t want to talk about in great detail, wonder are the people of Syria benefiting or just the big corporation like in Nigeria, watch the RT documentary on it if you had a spare hour, rt.com .

    Reply
    • Phil 23/02/13 #

      Well done Julie bringing up more important subjects. Getting tiring all this fight for gay rights crap. The journal seem to like writing crap like this to take the attention off what’s really happening in the world. Like the fact that there’s a man Tom Darcy bringing AIB to the high court over homeowners being hit with the nations bank debt (this is a huge case which should have massive media response); also not writing about the dangers of fracking in ireland; or that we sold the oil contracts for whole of ireland; or the real issues happening in Palestine, Gaza Strip; I could go on and on. Shame on Irish media and the journal.

      Reply
    • Phil 23/02/13 #

      Oh and what about our own minister for agricultures brother being the CEO of greencore, one of the biggest “beef” suppliers in the UK and ire. The journal did write about it but failed to allow user comments. This should have been highlighted as a major vested interest government scandal. He was trying to cover the whole horse meat scandal as rediculous at the beginning and even had the dept of agriculture write a doctored report to say that there was only “trace elements” of horse meat. When tescos tested the same factory samples they found up to 70%. What a complete cover up by the minister with his vested interests in the whole beef industry.
      The journal has vested interests in saving the governments face, and the former government.

      Reply
    • Julie 23/02/13 #

      Phil that is because in 22 I’m looking at the world and I’m going okay we are causing a scene over leaving gays marry, what difference does that make to anyone else’s life only the two people getting married, making irrelevant problems appear relevant to distract you from what is really relevant. Journal is alright you have a few informed journalists but they are controlled from the top. But Irish media is as bias and corrupt as they come, few papers are alright but majority radio also it bias. Ya I seen a section here international got all excited and it was pretty ill-informed sorry journal, if ye want to be very successful try the root of RT . Brilliant news channel. Sky fox, please don’t watch!

      Reply
    • Julie 23/02/13 #

      The journal might have their bosses vested interests being reflected in their biasses, anyone but the present and past party, anyone other than them will be strict on them and will tax them higher. They don’t want to lose a penny if they don’t have to, so they talk up what party suits there interest and talk down all other parties it is pretty simple.

      Reply
  • Do people really think that Obama and his government really gives two fiddles for marriage equaity? It’s PR, nothing short of positive image spin when he and his little demons run amok and destroy the world.
    Yes, I’d like to live in a world where a man can marry a man he loves or a woman marry a woman she loves, that’d be nice. But I don’t like this world that uses such stunts to blinker the majority from the crimes of the few and make it look like we are the ones winning, we’re not!
    The man has increased the US war on ‘terror’( a fake war for the military industrial complex and oil barons), he has shot down freedom of information requests, even more than Bush did, and ordered FBI raids on antiwar protesters, because opposing war is supporting terror and that makes you the enemy???
    More people are out of work than under Bush, the US has increased its imports from China to the detriment of the US workers.
    He appointed former head of Monsanto to the post of food safety(crazy!), he appointed the former heads of the reckless banks and phoney Federal Reserve to head up departments(hiring the robbers to investigate the crime).
    His owners, who are also our owners, the Rockefeller’s, Rothschild’s and the rest of the cabal who paid his way into the White House are still running the show. Obama’s an actor, an image of ‘change’, but he’s a bad guy working for far worse people, people who profit from death of millions and the rape of our planet.

    Reply
    • Julie 23/02/13 #

      Elastic you are right on most things you said, people still have this ideology of America as the American dream. I suggest the 11 or so people that thumbed you down to look into it. It actually mad that the facts are there and people choose not to register it. But you will be able to say I told ya so.

      Reply
  • Phil needs a hug…

    Reply
  • JakkiB 23/02/13 #

    He didnt mention the war ending eh??

    Reply
  • Did he say ‘get gay’?

    Reply

Add New Comment