1. DOMA set down that no state would have to recognize any same-sex relationship from another state as equivalent to marriage. [Section 2 DOMA]
2. DOMA prohibited the federal government from interpreting "spouse" or "marriage" as relating to a same-sex union. This meant that any federal marriage benefits would not be given to same-sex married couples. [Section 3 DOMA]
3. As a consequence of this interpretation of "spouse" and "marriage", there was no way for a US citizen who was married to a foreigner of the same sex to get a relationship-based green card for his/her partner. Those US citizens who were married to a foreigner of the same sex and who were lucky enough to have a spouse from a country that did grant immigration rights to same-sex couples had the choice between moving to the foreign country or staying in the US. Those US citizens married to a foreigner of the same sex who were not lucky enough to have a partner from a country where immigration was possible for same-sex couples were thus forced to live apart. [Section 3 DOMA]
The Obama administration has decided to argue that only section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. It is implicit in Holder's announcement that the administration believe section 3 to be unconstitutional because it restricts the fundamental right to marriage in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Holder is arguing that strict scrutiny should be used to evaluate the constitutionality of this law.
President Obama's decision to not defend the constitutionality of this malicious law is a great show of intelligence. Unfortunately, it does not have any direct consequences for gays in America. It is up to the courts to decide the constitutionality of the act, unless Congress decides to repeal it. Congress has the power to appoint counsel to defend the act in court.
Nevertheless, I am very happy that President Obama decided to err on the side of human rights on this one.
Related posts
Valentine's Day 2011 || Spreading the love (see point 9)
Posts
What is so ironic is that those in favor of the federal government mandating which marriages states are allowed to recognize are the same people who say they support federalism and states' rights. Makes no sense.
ReplyDelete