It’s Time To Fight – Alliance Defense Fund speaks out on USDOJ refusal to protect law

Update on federal DOMA Litigation

We wanted to update you on the litigation involving the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA – which essentially is the law that defines marriage to include one man and one woman for federal government purposes, and allows each state to define marriage without imposing any re-definition on another), and especially the impact of Eric Holder’s unprecedented announcement yesterday that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the law (and in fact actively oppose it).

As you know, the Attorney General’s announcement only confirms what has been a reality since the Administration began “defending” DOMA in the seven jurisdictions in which it is currently being challenged. It’s no exaggeration to say that the President’s team has been throwing the cases. The Administration has expressly waived advancing winning legal arguments and intentionally failed to cite binding legal precedent in each case. In fact, the Administration has “expressly disavowed” the winning legal arguments that the Bush Administration had made in previous cases. In short, it is clear that the President and his lawyers have been actively sabotaging DOMA in court.

That is why we have put so many resources into DOMA’s defense. There are two cases in California, two cases in Massachusetts, and cases in Oklahoma, Connecticut, and New York. The cases from Massachusetts are currently at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. ADF and its allies filed amicus briefs in those cases, which resulted in 15 briefs being filed in the case that covered every single legal argument that the United States Department of Justice had abandoned. The Alliance Defense Fund filed a brief on behalf of Representative Lamar Smith, who is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, presenting the court with the winning arguments that have been recognized by every other case upholding the definition of marriage. We also represent the state defendant in the Oklahoma case to defend both Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment defining marriage and DOMA. The other DOMA cases are in their beginning stages where we are preparing the same defense of DOMA that we mounted in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

We are also advising members of Congress on their right to intervene in light of Department of Justice’s complete abdication of its duty to defend the law enacted overwhelmingly by both Houses of Congress. The good news is that the Attorney General’s announcement paves the way for the House of Representatives intervention so that the federal law can be vigorously defended by an official party. We are encouraging Congress to step forward to fill the void left by the Administration and we are offering to help any way we can.

It’s an outrage that the President and his Attorney General would not only fail to defend the law, but actively side with those who seek to redefine marriage and label the majority of Americans as the equivalent of bigots motivated by “animus” for believing marriage is the union of one man and one woman. (After all, not only have 30 state marriage amendments been passed by usually overwhelming margins across the country, DOMA was passed in the House of Representatives by a bi-partisan vote of 342-67, and in the Senate 85-14 and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton). But this Administration has made no secret about what it thinks when religious liberty collides with those who seek to redefine marriage. As the President’s pick as head of the EEOC said, “…we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” “it’s a zero-sum game.”

The Alliance Defense Fund Marriage Team has kept the threat to marriage and religious freedom at the forefront of our minds as we have been working around the clock to litigate these cases. We ask for much prayer, for Congress to act, and the Courts to follow the law and Constitution. It is time to fight…
Thank you VERY much. John 15:5

Yours for religious freedom in America, with sincere appreciation and best regards,

Alan E. Sears
President, CEO and General Counsel
Alliance Defense Fund

Author: Alan Sears

 

 

  • http://Facebook Dan Trachl

    Thank you.

    I’m so tired of hearing that the D.O.M.A. is discriminatory. No one is discriminating. The law protects all equally. A homosexual man has every right to find a woman who will accept a proposal and marry her. A homosexual woman has every right to marry a man who wishes to marry her. JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. It’s not about discrimination. It’s about trying to redefine marriage to suit those who wish to have it’s benefits without meeting it’s definition. Those benefits are specifically designed to encourage men and women to marry and PROCREATE and pass on our values and heritage to the next generation so that we DO NOT VANISH FROM THE EARTH AS A PEOPLE.

    Even worse – they are attempting to force everyone to accept as “normal” a lifestyle that the majority of God-fearing Americans know is deviant and unnatural.

    Please keep up the fight. Thank you and God Bless You.

    Dan Trachl
    217 Dorset Drive,
    Evans, GA 30809

  • http://www.myspace.com/7558749 Michael Ejercito

    Did any of the readers know that the Oklahoma suit is the oldest pending federal challenge against DOMA and state marriage amendments where appellate review had yet to be exhausted.

    Expect to be familiar with the term certiorari before judgment with the Oklahoma case. Unless the Massachusetts plaintiffs drop their case, the First Circuit would surely have ruled on the merits of the Massachusetts case before the Tenth Circuit rules on the merits of the Oklahoma case, and the losing party in the Oklahoma case will surely petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgment simultaneously with the losing party’s petition for cert in the Massachusetts case. If the Supreme Court chooses to hear those cases, they may also choose to hear similar cases from Texas and California.

  • Pat Dumalski

    Dan T.,
    Eloquent statement of the facts, thank you. I struggle with the issue because people I love are homosexual. But I very much defend the institution and definition of marriage. As a Bible believing Christian I see homosexuality as a sin. We ought not to promote and protect an act or behavior that is contrary to Gods’ word, in my opinion.
    I do think we have rights, as Americans, to live with whom we desire and do what we desire with those we love, as consenting adults. I am not opposed to civic unions nor legal process where people have arranged for specific people to have rights to manage end of life issues, inheritance and the such.
    Following God is a choice and He gave us free will to make that decision…but, there are consequences to all of our choices, all of the time. Also, there are laws that govern our society in America, federal, state and local. If we break those laws we should expect to be held accountable, that is the responsibility of those whose job it is to enforce our laws (as we all know, sometimes we get caught, sometimes we don’t). Furthermore, we have established means to change laws and elect officials. We have three branches of government and each has its own function. We do have a proven tract record. Some issues take time and patience. I pray right prevails over wrong. I vote accordingly.
    We threw God out of our schools and we are embattled with our government and courts and even churches. If we don’t wake up and recognize that there is a battle for the hearts (and minds and bodies)of our people, our children, we will loose America.

  • http://monex.to/due-diligence/before-you-buy-gold-and-silver-632.html buy silver

    their own Defense of Marriage Acts DOMAs while 2 more states have strong language that defines marriage as one man and one woman. There are 30 states that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage including the three states Arizona California and Florida that passed constitutional amendments in November 2008.

  • http://monex.to/due-diligence/before-you-buy-gold-and-silver-632.html buy gold

    … Speaker of the House John Boerner that he plans to have the House of Representatives intervene in several current lawsuitsin order to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act DOMA . . The Department of Justice under President Obama that it believes DOMA is unconstitutional and will not defend it any longer in court.

  • robert rodriguez

    Every nation, peoples, race, tribes and cultures have all instinctively recognized since the begining of mankind that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even the most primitive tribes in the deepest jungles know this. Even the animal kingdom instinctively knows this. How supposed learned men (like Obama and Eric Holder) come to such a foolish conclusion is beyond me.

  • sheila

    When homosexuals etc. can procreate without the use of agencies for adoption and artificial insemination etc., then, with my blessings they should enter into the sacred rite of matrimony,as advocated in the word. As this is an impossibility, why persist on redefining the intended meaning of the word? Why not choose or design a name unique to their own set of circumstances? In that way they could retain and convey their own distinct partiality as they define it. The bible states Matt. 5:18 “For verily I say unto you,till heaven and earth pass, one jot nor one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”
    If the Lord feels that way about punctuation…how do you think he would react to the altering not only of the measure of a word but to its entire significance and contextual intent? It is my belief that these men require not just the permission to love as they wish, (which they already can)but to have notoriety in the process. They tend to make scenes where none are warranted and cry abuse, like spoiled children, when another exercises their right to deny them there way. In the process of expressing themselves and their beliefs they choose to deny all else of their’s. Go figure…now you tell me where the justice is in that? The church is surely being persecuted in this age but remember if you are the one whom the finger is on at the moment Matt.5:11,12 “Blessed are you when men shall revile you,and persecute you and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my names sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Fear not,Romans 12:19 “Dearly beloved avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written,Vengeance is mine,I will repay.saith the Lord” Be strong and keep up the good fight mishcopha