A Collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh

Federal judges' ruling raises question of justice department's defense of anti-gay marriage law

Richard Socarides [President Equality Matters]: "This is another important ruling from a federal District Court raising serious questions as to the validity of the Justice Department's defense of the federal anti-gay marriage law.

It's an important development because it adds to the growing willingness of the federal bench to take a closer look at the government's assertions that this law should pass low-level constitutional muster and because the judge's reasoning and language was persuasive: that the Defense of Marriage Act actually changed the rules by "robbing states of the power to allow same-sex civil marriages that will be recognized under federal law."

The administration cannot continue to advocate for this law, or at least it can't continue to ask that it only be tested against low level scrutiny, and still seriously maintain that it wants to expand gay rights, rather than contract them. I'm hoping that they are getting the point as more and more federal judges rule against them."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.

About Professional Commentary

Professional Commentary is JURIST's platform for newsmakers, activists and legal experts to comment on national and international legal developments.

Hotline welcomes submissions, inquiries and comments at professionalcommentary@jurist.org.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.