“[W]e can now see that the understandings on which DOMA was premised have not survived our nation’s increased knowledge about same-sex families or our modern understanding of what equality requires,” the senators write. The brief is one of several filed today in support of Edith Windsor's challenge to DOMA.
WASHINGTON — Former Senators Bill Bradley, Tom Daschle, Christopher Dodd and Alan Simpson — all of whom voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 — told the Supreme Court Friday that "the original justifications for DOMA can no longer be credited today," concluding that "our constitutional commitment to equality does not tolerate such discrimination."DOMA is an especially poor candidate for any claim of deference to the constitutional judgment of the political braches. It was enacted hastily, with little independent consideration of its constitutionality, against the backdrop of a constitutional jurisprudence this Court has since abandoned. It was premised in large part on fears that subsequent experience has proven unfounded. And it effects a discrimination that we now have come to recognize as incompatible with our constitutional commitment to equal treatment under the law.
these laws were inposed early on by those selfish and desirous of lording over other's they saw as beneath them and should never have or have the means to get what they have prejudice is bliss in our law making part of the gov't as well as their representitives.
This federalism argument has figured into the reason why two federal appeals courts have struck down Section 3 of DOMA, the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse," as unconstitutional. It is not, however, directly advanced by either Edith Windsor, the lesbian widow challenging DOMA at the Supreme Court, or the Obama administration, which has taken Windsor's side in the case.
they rewrote the all men are created equal to equal but separate, they now deny nature and claim exclusivety on all things that are companion and partner oriented, who made them God, they did.
