Get PJ Media on your Apple

DOMA: A Question of Federalism or Equal Protection?

Supreme Court hears arguments on Clinton-era statute as Roberts questions Obama and the "courage of his convictions" for enforcing DOMA while calling it invalid.

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

March 27, 2013 - 7:25 pm

In an omen to both sides of the same-sex marriage debate that they risk walking away with less than they want, arguments before the Supreme Court went from yesterday’s debate on whether a state’s voters can usurp what the federal government may deem a constitutional right to today’s issue of whether the federal government can have a Defense of Marriage Act if the business of marriage should be the prerogative of the states.

“The question is whether or not the federal government under our federalism scheme has the authority to regulate marriage,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote in today’s case and in the arguments against California’s Proposition 8 heard yesterday.

“What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

Nine states currently recognize gay marriage and 30 states have banned it via constitutional amendments.

United States v. Windsor is an appeal on a case brought by Edie Windsor, who married her partner in Canada in 2007. When her partner died in 2009, their home state of New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. When Windsor inherited her spouse’s estate, she was forced to pay $363,000 in taxes on the inheritance because her marriage was not recognized on a federal level.

Because of the core tax issue, many felt the conservatives on the court would be more sympathetic to the case despite the highly charged facet of gay marriage.

“Suppose we look just at the estate tax provision that’s an issue in this case, which provides specially favorable treatment to a married couple, as opposed to any other individual or economic unit. What was the purpose of that? Was the purpose of that really to foster traditional marriage?” asked Justice Samuel Alito. “Or was Congress just looking for a convenient category to capture households that function as a unified economic unit?”

Attorney Paul Clement, a former solicitor general who led the challenge to ObamaCare last year, argued that Congress passed DOMA in 1996 faced with “the prospect that one state, through its judiciary, will adopt same-sex marriage and then, by operation of the full faith and credit law, that will apply to any — any couple that wants to go there.”

“And so Congress is worried that people are going to go there, go back to their home jurisdictions, insist on the recognition in their home jurisdictions of their same-sex marriage in Hawaii, and then the federal government will borrow that definition, and, therefore, by the operation of one state’s state judiciary, same-sex marriage is basically going to be recognized throughout the country,” Clement said.

“And what Congress says is, wait a minute. Let’s take a timeout here. This is a redefinition of an age-old institution. Let’s take a more cautious approach, where every sovereign gets to do this for themselves.”

“You’re saying, we can create this special category — men and women — because the states have an interest in traditional marriage that they’re trying to protect,” Sotomayor interjected. “How do you get the federal government to have the right to create categories of that type based on an interest that’s not there, but based on an interest that belongs to the states?”

“One way to stay out of the debate and let just the states develop this and let the democratic process deal with this is to just say, look, we’re going to stick with what we’ve always had, which is traditional definition,” Clement argued. “We’re not going to create a regime that gives people an incentive and point to federal law and say, well, another reason you should have same-sex marriage is because then you’ll get a state tax deduction.”

“It’s not as though, well, there’s this little federal sphere and it’s only a tax question,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “It’s as Justice Kennedy said, 1,100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so you’re really diminishing what the state has said is marriage.”

Justice Elena Kagan noted that a House report said Congress “decided to reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality” in its passage of DOMA.

“Does the House report say that? Of course the House Report says that. And if that’s enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute,” Clement responded. “…The House report says some things that we are not — we’ve never invoked in trying to defend the statute. But the House report says other things, like Congress was trying to promote democratic self-governance.”

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., under questioning from Chief Justice John Roberts, said he didn’t think there would be a problem with federalism if Congress today passed a law recognizing same-sex marriage, because “that wouldn’t raise an equal protection problem like this statute does.”

“So just to be clear, you don’t think there’s a federalism problem with what Congress has done in DOMA?” Roberts asked.

“No, we don’t, Mr. Chief Justice. The question is, what is the constitutionality for equal protection purposes? And because it’s unconstitutional and it’s embedded into numerous federal statutes, those statutes will have an unconstitutional effect,” Verrilli replied.

“But you’re insisting that we get to a very fundamental question of equal protection, but we don’t do that unless we assume that the law is valid otherwise to begin with. And we’re asking, is it valid otherwise? What is the federal interest in enacting this statute? And is it a valid federal interest assuming — before we get to the equal protection analysis?” Kennedy said.

“We think whatever the outer bounds of the federal government’s authority — and there certainly are outer bounds — would be, apart from the equal protection violation, we don’t think that section three, apart from equal protection analysis, raises a federalism problem,” Verrilli said. “But we do think the federalism analysis does play into the equal protection analysis, because the federal government is not the 51st state.”

Roberts questioned President Obama for continuing to enforce DOMA’s provisions even while proclaiming that it’s unconstitutional.

“If he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, ‘Oh, we’ll wait ’til the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice,’” the chief justice said.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in response at the daily press briefing that the administration will enforce “laws that we disagree with,” though Obama had decided not to defend DOMA in court.

“You know, in terms of what our legal posture is for these things, I would refer you to the Department of Justice. They have done the legal analysis required to reach the conclusion that it is unconstitutional. They also are the ones that are responsible for enforcing these laws,” Earnest added.

Because of the tie to Congress, some lawmakers had their interest piqued beyond the state ballot case heard a day earlier.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) attended the day’s arguments. “When I first became whip and after that, one of the first questions, shall we say, less than friendly journalists would ask me on their show or so would be, do you support gay marriage? And of course I would always say, I support gay marriage,” she told reporters afterward. “So, now it’s a badge of honor for a lot of people but, for a long time, it was something that we knew was inevitable.”

“You know, from our beautiful place in San Francisco, the city of St. Francis, we knew it was inevitable that all of this would happen. It was inconceivable to others that it would,” Pelosi continued. “And it was our job to use whatever influence we could have to shorten the distance between the inevitable and the inconceivable.”

D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton said the District’s marriage rate doubled the first year after same-sex marriage passed here in 2009.

“The District, along with nine states, has been a pioneering jurisdiction in expanding civil rights to gay residents,” said Norton. ”…If DOMA is struck down, D.C. residents and others who were married here will be among the first to benefit and may benefit disproportionately in part because of the large number of residents who are federal employees, whose spouses would benefit from federal employee benefits, including health care.”

Hill Republicans pretty much ignored the day’s proceedings, though, with House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office pressuring Obama yet again to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and counting down to the president’s two-months-late budget due on April 8.

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"“What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked."

She picked a fine issue to be worried about that. This question could be asked about 75% of the cases brought before the Supreme Court, including the health-insurance scam, and answered with one word. NOTHING!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (36)
All Comments   (36)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I fail to understand how this is a Federal or a States issue. The Government should have NO interest in who I marry! It is none of their business. We did just fine without the Government licensing us for marriage. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. Originally it was so persons of mixed races could marry but eventually everyone needed "permission" to marry. (If they can give you permission they can also withhold that permission. Any Church that you choose to belong to can do a "ceremony" that signifies that you are in agreement with the teachings of the Church that you desire to be a part of. They also can so no if you're not in agreement with their teachings. If you're not in agreement why would you want to be married there! The View?? Go find a church or group of friends that you agree with and have your own ceremony. There's many more implications to all this but you'll find a lot of what clogs our courts and the halls of Congress have to do with the Government sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. Health Insurance? If you don't want to give health insurance to ALL employees and their families, which we only have as a means of giving a raise in pay that won't be taxed, don't give it to ANY. Give them a raise and let them do what they want with it. I think if you get the insurance companies out of the "Health" business we'll all be healthier and be able to afford Drs. a lot better. Cut out the Middle Man,this would include OBAMACARE and any other lame ass substitute they choose to come up with. He's really not doing anything anyways except costing everybody hundreds of billions of dollars telling you and your Dr. that you can't afford your treatment because of some small print in your policy that says that you're not covered for that. Think about it, there isn't an area in your life that is better because the Government has taken control of it.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Rush Limbaugh has given up his radio show! He is no longer fighting for rights against leftists!!!! He is the enemy! He has surrendered!!!!!!

Or maybe, just maybe...he believes THIS ONE ISSUE, has left the barn.

That the fighting over this WORD...was lost long ago.

And all the Chicken Little's running around telling everyone that not fighting a lost cause, is not fighting any cause...will also run around saying that Limbaugh is no longer fighting, So, he might as well cancel all his shows.

Which is just as ridiculous today as it was yesterday.

Rush Limbaugh on gay marriage: “This issue is lost”


http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/28/rush-limbaugh-on-gay-marriage-this-issue-is-lost/

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There are many lost causes cfbleachers. You happen to fight for many of them, you just dont think this one is worth fighting. But your David Frum style language on the issue with regards to those who do, is very offputting.

Frum Dumb.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sit back and enjoy the ride, the Mainstream Media and Leftist Academy is in full control.

Dont fall into their trap of opposing them, where they will smear you as a bigoted hater on the Southern Poverty Law Centers Database.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
how long before the chuckand larrys, mary and maudes start lining up for benefit and tax fraude?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Instantly.

A few issues nobody seems to be considering:

http://1389blog.com/2013/03/26/sodomy-we-all-have-to-pay-ann-coulter-debate-on-nannying-devolves/

http://1389blog.com/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-and-the-end-of-the-rule-of-law-in-the-us/

You can't just go ahead and redefine legal terms according to the vagaries of mob rule. Do that and everything goes up for grabs. All bets are off.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The answer to the question posed in the headline, is NEITHER.
And YOU think YOU can COUNT ON ROBERTS to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION?
Isn't he Obama's butt buddy now?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Roberts questioned President Obama for continuing to enforce DOMA’s provisions even while proclaiming that it’s unconstitutional.

“If he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, ‘Oh, we’ll wait ’til the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice,’” the chief justice said.........................

Well must thank the Justice for this little dig - saying what we here already know : OBummer never, ever takes responsibility for anything- his MO is " pass the BUCk" ---->ALWAYS -
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"“What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked."

She picked a fine issue to be worried about that. This question could be asked about 75% of the cases brought before the Supreme Court, including the health-insurance scam, and answered with one word. NOTHING!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What ended in the 60's was courage.

The time to fight propaganda and leftism, was (and still is), when the media becomes an arm of leftism and steals the information stream.

To tilt at every windmill the leftists throw up now...to have those spittle-flecked in rage constantly beclown themselves, falling for every trap set for them, shooting blindly in every direction, raging against decoys.

If anything destroys our ability to defeat leftism, it is the raging jihadist who can't think straight, shoot straight or know when he is a patsy.

The way to defeat propaganda and leftism...is not to feed it. Or to play it's willing fool.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That argument works for every issue. And so we have a never ending series of hills to not die on, caving, and moving farther and farther Left.

You got the GOP you deserve.

Amnesty and open borders. We have to give voting rights to illegal invaders, settlers, and colonizers, because it isnt smart to tilt at that windmill, dont you know.

Hey, Obamacare is a done deal. The electorate spoke. Running on repeal is bad strategy. You lost that argument. Only racists and bigots oppose Obama and Gay Marriage....or rather that is how they will be portrayed, falling into the trap set by the Left for them.

There you have it folks.

Resistance is futile. Go crawl in a hole and be silent, the era of European Christendom (old white men) is over.
There you have it folks.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Or as Madam Speaker Pelosi put it when asked if Obamacare is constitutional...

Youre joking, right?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Freedom of Association ended in the 60s.

That horse has already left the barn.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
the least consequential issues often suck the most oxygen from the room. Be honest - on the scale of problems facing the country, this one ranks pretty low. Unfortunately, SCOTUS will not ask the bigger question - who is govt to define marriage in the first place? It's a contract; the state's role is enforcing the provisions and providing redress when one party things the other has violated the terms. Not up to govt to determine which consenting adults can participate. But like I said, this is a distraction that leads to a lot of emoting and masks the truly dangerous things Congress does.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Of course, but when every mountain looks like a good one to die on, then we should leap off every cliff, tearing our hair out and screaming.

In fact, I am now absolutely convinced of the need to do away with Medicare and Social Security. Immediately.

Seems like a well reasoned and responsible reaction. Becoming a bug-eyed jihadist and attacking in all directions at once makes for great generalship and will persuade the masses to follow, I'm quite sure.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Becoming a bug-eyed jihadist and attacking in all directions at once makes for great generalship and will persuade the masses to follow, I'm quite sure"

Seems to be working for the progressives, though, in defense I'd add they are aided by their control over vast amounts of their opponents' money.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All

One Trackback to “DOMA: A Question of Federalism or Equal Protection?”