1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

The Obama administration argues against Proposition 8

January 15, 2009, Obama was tracking to the Supreme Court. © Whitehouse.gov / Pete Souza.
January 15, 2009, Obama was tracking to the Supreme Court. © Whitehouse.gov / Pete Souza.

(Blogmensgo, 14th  March 2013) The General Counsel Donald B. Verrilli Jr. filed on behalf of the Obama administration, on February 28, 2013, a memorandum in favor of gay marriage in the office of the Federal Supreme Court.  As foreseen, the 40-page memorandum supports unambiguous supporters of marriage between persons of the same sex.

Memorandum: here | here

By prohibiting gay marriage, Proposition 8 California "violates equal rights" as defined by the 14th  Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the memorandum argues.

Other elements of the memorandum fourmilles also legal arguments.  Advocate General suggests that there Proposition 8 gives a definition of marriage (necessarily between a man and a woman) who is perhaps the approximation of the truth, especially as proponents of "traditional" marriage provide no evidence that marriage between persons of the same sex can interfere in any way with heterosexual marriage.

The memorandum focuses on Proposition 8 without mentioning the constitutionality of the federal law on marriage (Doma). However, the Advocate General recommends to the High Court a "closer look" at laws prohibiting marriage between persons of the same sex.

The Obama administration therefore calls - an indirect but not explicitly - the highest U.S. court to determine whether there is discrimination in the fact that seven other states (Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island) specifically allow homosexual couples to unite while forbidding them to marry.

Comment. memorandum is both bold and clever. 
Audacious in scope: while not a frontal attack on the Doma law, it goes further than any other official position of the U.S. government in office. Bold too, because the government was not involved in the case and therefore had no obligation to file a memorandum. 
Clever by its construction. The memorandum does not come from the head of state but the attorney general, so it is placed on the ground, not on politics but on a strictly legal grounding,  and legal arguments, the text provides satiety.  There is every reason to believe that the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court held full account of this text audastucieux.

This article has been translated from our French blog, to view the original, click here.

Philca & Matt / MensGo
(via whole press February 28, 2013, the Washington Post )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This Blog will give regular Commentators DoFollow Status. Implemented from IT Blögg

image
drapo FR
drapo FR  drapo ES  drapo US  drapo IT  drapo DE drapo BR

image  RSS feed

 

Facebook

Our Partners (in French)

image

The MensGo galaxy