Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

記住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新聞&特寫

« 較新的 | 較舊的 »
24 Feb 2011

US will no longer defend anti-gay marriage law: Obama

The Obama administration says a federal law that bans recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and has directed the Justice Department not to defend the law anymore in court cases across the country.

The Obama administration on Wednesday delivered what has been described by the San Francisco Chronicle to be a "rare and important legal policy reversal", declaring that a law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriages is unconstitutional and discriminatory and that Department of Justice lawyers will no longer defend it in court cases across the country.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed in 1996, defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, and prohibits the federal government from granting benefits to same-sex couples, such as breaks for estate taxes and Social Security payments to spouses.

The administration will still enforce the law as the responsibility for defending the marriage act now falls to Congress, which has the authority to appoint a special counsel to pursue the issue.

In a statement issued by the US Department of Justice that notified Congress of President Barack Obama's decision, Attorney General Eric Holder said: "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.

"Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalising homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court."

United States

讀者回應

1. 2011-02-24 21:23  
bless him
2. 2011-02-25 02:03  
As Churchill once said, "Eventually the Americans do the right thing".
3. 2011-02-25 02:26  
It's a step in the right direction, but even Obama is being dragged into the 21st century on this one. Hopefully we will catch up with Canada and Mexico eventually!
4. 2011-02-25 05:01  
It would be too long American Gays will be totally free like Canada.
5. 2011-02-25 10:47  
#3, I read something interesting recently, sort of echoing your sentiment, but with a twist. It said, though it's taken Obama two years to start fulfilling his promises to the GLBT community, he's now done more for gay rights than the 43 US presidents who preceded him, which is to say, "He's done SOMETHING."
6. 2011-02-25 13:27  
I'm predicting that the pendulum will continue to swing from administration to administration until it's firmed up by a federal law that makes federal benefits available to straight couples coextensive for gay couples.
7. 2011-02-25 13:38  
Considering that Clinton supported DOMA and DADT, I think Obama was further ahead on gay rights since Day 1.
8. 2011-02-25 19:45  
that'll up set the apple cart with the gawd fearin Republicans..hehe..do we expect an almighty war.. I wonder if they will have a civil war over it like they did slavery? fundy christians are crazy enough
9. 2011-02-27 10:07  
my first comment above, i was fearful on day one of an emotional hateful right wing attack on Obama. but the reaction so far is not much.
In the US now, it seems now, no one much cares about if gays can marry or not, as long as most people have a job.
10. 2011-02-27 10:10  
Further, I salute the gay equal rights lawyers who chose the correction regional / district court to bring this law suit in which in a way, forced the Obama Admin to make this decision.

In brief, under English Common Law of "precedents or case law" in the district court where the legal action was filed, there were no precedents, and the burden was then on the Obama admin to defend this law and PROVE that it did not result in discrimination. That being the case, and no real hope of defending the law as non discriminatory, the Obama lawyers/justice department opted for not filing legal defenses of this stupid law. So the lesson, one lesson is: get a good lawyer.
11. 2011-02-27 14:32  
If it is unconstitutional then they should move to repeal it at the earliest opportunity. It makes you wonder why it was enacted in the first place doesn't it? No doubt due to the religious views of the law-makers of the day.
12. 2011-02-28 02:48  
Yes, andy, i agree, fashion and politics change. i think just ignore it and it goes away. actually i like civil unions for everyone. marriage is so "yesterday".
13. 2011-03-01 20:51  
As I recall, Clinton said he thought DOMA was probably unconstitutional when he signed it. Not to defend him for signing it, but the thought process at that time seemed to be that DOMA would avoid a possible federal constitution amendment banning same sex marriage/civil unions.
If that had happened things might not have changed for a couple more generations.

請先登入再使用此功能。

請選擇新聞及專欄版本

精選個人檔案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

讚好

合作夥伴

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement