I was attempting to ad this to the Inauguration thread. I will try it again as a post on it own.
Yesterday the GOP filed their brief. They already secretly raised to $3 Million funds that they originally promised wouldn't exceed $1 million (chicken feed in government).
The House Republican leadership Tuesday filed a brief in the Supreme Court urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act as constitutional, arguing that the Obama administration "abdicated its duty to defend DOMA's constitutionality" in February 2011 and instead started "attacking" the law in court.
As to the law itself, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group controlled 3-2 by Republicans in light of their House majority argued that the federal government had the authority to legislate in an attempt to ensure "national uniformity" regarding the provision of federal benefits. The House leaders argue that in addition to the federal reasons, the Congress could act for the same reasons many states have acted to ban same-sex couples from marrying. They wrote:
"There is a unique relationship between marriage and procreation that stems from marriage's origins as a means to address the tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unintended and unplanned offspring. There is nothing irrational about declining to extend marriage to same-sex relationships that, whatever their other similarities to opposite-sex relationships, simply do not share that same tendency. Congress likewise could rationally decide to foster relationships in which children are raised by both of their biological parents."
"The U.S. Department of Justice has not defended the 1996 law since February 2011, when it decided that it believed that Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional."
It also seems like a good number of federal courts have also declared provisions/sections of DOMA to be unconstitutional.
One of the primary cases to be heard is a tax case pure and simple!
A rather pathetic approach to the subject since most of the cases are financial & have to do with spousal benefits or inheritance.
Most US marriage laws are concerned with property & inheritance.
"It’s bad enough that Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act " and losing in every case. Now, they have reached a new low " signing a secret contract to spend more public money on their legal boondoggle without informing Democrats. Their actions are simply unconscionable; their decisions are utterly irresponsible.”
At least in the past the swine tried claiming activists Judges were the problem
Nearly all the Federal Judges that Struck down DOMA have been BUSH REGAN & NIXON appointees!
W]e conclude that review of Section 3 of DOMA requires heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court uses certain factors to decide whether a new classification qualifies as a quasi-suspect class. They include: A) whether the class has been historically “subjected to discrimination,”; B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that “frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society,” C) whether the class exhibits “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group;” and D) whether the class is “a minority or politically powerless.” Immutability and lack of political power are not strictly necessary factors to identify a suspect class. Nevertheless, immutability and political power are indicative, and we consider them here. In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.
This is a really big deal. Jacobs is not simply saying that DOMA imposes unique and unconstitutional burdens on gay couples, he is saying that any attempt by government to discriminate against gay people must have an “exceedingly persuasive” justification. This is the same very skeptical standard afforded to laws that discriminate against women. If Jacobs’ reasoning is adopted by the Supreme Court, it will be a sweeping victory for gay rights.
Jacobs is a HW Bush appointee! He once gave a speech to the Federalist society decrying the "anti social effects" of attorneys providing free legal services to the less foryunate.