Staff Editorial

Rights to same-sex marriage almost legal

On Wednesday, US Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement saying that the government would no longer defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The decision to no longer defend DOMA has come as a result of the legal challenges of same sex marriages within the second circuit court of appeals.

The court doesn’t have precedent in relation to how to deal with cases involving sexual orientation. The court has no standard or binding to fall back on in cases that deal with how someone’s sexual orientation should be treated under the law.

Holder and President Barack Obama agreed upon the decision.

“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The president has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional,” Holder wrote.

The decision is definitely a victory for human rights, and is a step forward in the attempt of reaching greater equality under the law. However, the decision still leaves more than a few questions unanswered.

If the government is no longer going to defend DOMA in court, then the question remains — who will? This is a question of legal standing, and the government might have been the only appropriate body to have the right to defend suits against DOMA. Moreover, if congressional leaders were to try and defend DOMA, since the government is now choosing not to, they will have to show injury or harm as a result of the challenged action.

The decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal appeals courts may be Obama’s clever way of slowly making marriage a legal reality for every US citizen.


  • For this to be unconstitutional, the constitution would have to say something about homosexuals. It does not. So, the argument is not substantial. Obama or Holder should cite the exact clause of the Constitution that this law is violating. It's kind of surprising that they 'uphold' the constitution on this end while not acknowledging the ruling of two federal judges that the Affordable Health Care Act is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. Typical Obama.

    • Ricky,
      As far the constitution having to be specific about homosexuality for it to be considered unconstitutional, I don't think that is necessarily the case. I would think that the 9th amendment would help in cases of freedoms that are not specifically addressed.

      Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  • Government needs to get out of the marriage business. period.

    If two people want to get married they need to sign a contract and then file the papers and be done with it.

    Tax payers pay legions of government workers to push paper-work around when there is no need.
    And RickyRicardo..How about Pursuit of Happiness… as in The Constitution of the United States – Declaration of Independence?

      • lol using the constitution to justify oppression.

        if thomas jefferson himself rose from the dead and made ridiculously legalistic justifications for denying human rights to a minority, it would still be the last argument of chumps and bigots.

  • Isn't it lovely how the the excuitive branch chooses to not enforce the law. How if another president chose not to enforce roe vs wade the same group would throw a fit. Than you for the double standard.

    Yes the consitiution states that but I'll tell you right now that it has limits. Thanks to the NFA of 1933, the 1968 GCA and the 1986 FOPA infringes upon my pursuit of happiness. But I know you would cry out should those be repealed and abolish.

    This was a law passed and as such should be upheld. If you don't like it then get it changed, till then this just shows how P Bo likes to pick and choose what he wants to enforce and not.

Leave a Comment