Do we now have more reasons to kill DOMA?

[Motown_Johnny]

Since the DADT repeal is now moving forward, do we have one more argument against DOMA?

It is another Clinton era compromise which has long outlived it's usefulness.

Once DADT is repealed it is reasonable to assume that some service members will enter into same sex marriages. Due to DOMA the spouses of service members who share the same gender will not receive the same benefits as other spouses.




Hypothetical situation:

A military plane goes down killing both the pilot and copilot. The pilot was a woman married to a man while the copilot was a man married to a man. The man who survives the pilot will receive benefits while the man who survives the copilot will not receive benefits.




How can this be passed off as equal protection under the law?

[WillParkinson]

1. K & R, but...

You're putting way too much thought into combating ignorance. Many people are fine with Jimmy being killed protecting the country, but not with Jimmy having a life if he makes it out alive.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. but what about the Senators who voted for DADT repeal?

If this argument is presented to them (in a more eloquent manner than I can provide) how can they not support it?

Are they not already on record on this issue?

[lonestarnot]

2. Cannot! Such bullshit passed off as equal protection,

[Skinner]

4. It is only a matter of time before DOMA is either repealled or struck down.

And I agree that the repeal of DADT strengthens our case against DOMA. But I think the approach to repealing these two laws is likely to be different.

I argued for the last two years that a statutory repeal of DADT was the best way to go. For three reasons: 1) Changing the law is the gold standard, and would not be undone, 2) public opinion was on our side, and we had the votes in Congress, and 3) The Supreme Court tends to be very deferential to the military, and (I believe) would have upheld the law.

But I think in the case of DOMA -- and gay marriage in general -- I think focusing on a judicial remedy makes sense, for similar reasons to why I thought a statutory repeal of DADT was the best way to go. 1) Public opinion is still lagging on this issue, and many elected officials might be reluctant to take a stand, 2) Marriage laws are usually set at the state level, and we know some states are pretty conservative, 3) repealing DOMA would not make gay marriage legal in all the states, and 4) If gay marriage makes it to the Supreme Court, I think we might actually win. My guess is that there is a 50-50 chance the court would strike down laws against same-sex marriage -- as some state courts have already done -- based on the equal protection clause of the constitution, which would make gay marriage legal everywhere in the US.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. Thanks for responding

I don't get an "Admin." very often, this may even be my first.





But more to the point 1)wouldn't continued pressure to repeal help shape public opinion 2+3) Doesn't DOMA counter the full faith and credit clause which would/should require all states to recognize the marriages from other states (even if it does not force them to allow same sex marriages be performed in their state) 4) what path to the Supreme Court do you see for DOMA if not one based somewhat on the hypothetical I suggested?

[Skinner]

7. You're welcome.

1) Yes, continued pressure will help shape public opinion.

2+3) Yes, I think that DOMA does violate the full faith and credit clause. But my preference is that we set our sights higher: Judicial repeal of all laws against gay marriage, rather than narrowly focusing on DOMA.

4) The path to the supreme court for DOMA: I think the Boies/Olson case, even though it is challenging a state law, would also serve to repeal DOMA if it is successful.

[H2O Man]

5. DOMA must be

challenged in the federal courts as an Amendment 1 case. The current policy is a matter of religious-based repression of a minority group. It is only rooted in the religious beliefs of a specific group of Americans, and cannot possible stand up to this type of challenge.