Over 100 House members filed an amicus brief Thursday in support of a major challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, saying the provision denying same-sex married couples federal rights is unconstitutional and undermines the interests of Congress.
The brief states the 133 House Democrats think the DOMA section defining marriage as a legal union only between one man and one woman ?lacks a rational relationship to any legitimate federal purpose and accordingly is unconstitutional.?
Continue Reading?Many Members believe that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Constitution and should be struck down,? the brief states.
Under the DOMA provision in question, the federal government is not allowed to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages, meaning married gay and lesbian couples are treated as unmarried for federal purposes.
In the brief, the members ? including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and Reps. Jerry Nadler, John Conyers, Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis, among others ? state that Congress ?acted hastily? when DOMA was enacted.
?Congress passed DOMA without examining its impact on any of the thousand-plus federal laws that take marital status into account or hearing from child welfare or family law experts,? the brief states. ?Nor did Congress pause to examine why the federal government traditionally has respected state marriages for purposes of federal law despite the non-trivial differences in state marriage laws over this nation?s history before rupturing this longstanding federalist practice.?
Among those Democrats signing onto the amicus curiae, 14 members ? including Hoyer ? voted for the bill?s passage in 1996. Reps. Jim Clyburn, Robert Andrews, Earl Blumenauer, Rosa DeLauro, Loyld Doggett, Michael Doyle, Bob Filner, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Sander Levin, Nita Lowey, Richard Neal, Ed Pastor and Bobby Rush also supported DOMA in 1996. Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee voted present.
The brief supports the consolidated case of Massachusetts v. Dept. of Health and Human Services and Gill vs. Office of Personnel Management, the brief states. The case has reached the First Circuit Court of Appeals after a federal district court ruled the section is unconstitutional, and Attorney General Eric Holder announced in 2011 the Justice Department would no longer defend the statute. In response, the House?s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted 3-2 to hire outside lawyers to defend DOMA in court.
The members write in the amicus brief that the law?s driving force ?was the desire to disapprove and disadvantage gay and lesbian couples, which is not a legitimate federal interest.?
?Where Congress has allocated federal burdens or benefits based on marital status, the decision to exclude an entire class of married citizens is not the rational result of impartial lawmaking,? the brief states.
james garner wale wale weather denver weather denver ambition dorothy rodham
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.