Court asks lawyer to argue special DOMA question
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday invited a Massachusetts lawyer to come argue that the justices cannot rule on one of the gay marriage questions it had planned to decide next year.
The court asked lawyer Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge to join the gay marriage arguments this spring, but she won't be arguing whether it's legal for governments to treat gay Americans differently in issues of marriage. Instead, at the court's invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it's improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples.
The high court will be hearing two gay marriage arguments: first, whether California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex is constitutional. The second question is the one Jackson will argue that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.
Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states - Maine, Maryland, Washington state, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont - and the nation's capital, the District of Columbia.
But a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment.
So far, four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. Last year, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law, but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.
Jackson was asked by the court to argue "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case." She will also argue that House Republicans cannot substitute themselves for the Justice Department and therefore they lack "standing in this case."
The court asked lawyer Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge to join the gay marriage arguments this spring, but she won't be arguing whether it's legal for governments to treat gay Americans differently in issues of marriage. Instead, at the court's invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it's improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples.
The high court will be hearing two gay marriage arguments: first, whether California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex is constitutional. The second question is the one Jackson will argue that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.
Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states - Maine, Maryland, Washington state, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont - and the nation's capital, the District of Columbia.
But a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment.
So far, four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. Last year, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law, but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.
Jackson was asked by the court to argue "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case." She will also argue that House Republicans cannot substitute themselves for the Justice Department and therefore they lack "standing in this case."
Bisexual freedom! End discrimination! One man, and one woman, for everyone.The next step in ending discrimination of sexual preference.
I'm confused. The Supreme Court IS the arbiter of what laws are constitutional and what laws are not constitutional. How in heck can a lawyer argue that the Supreme Court cannot rule on the constitutionality of a law?
9 judges - all heterosexuals, 3 women, 1 Black, 6 Christians, 1 jew and 2 non-religious. The best chance in history for DOMA to declare unconstitutional, but it will not be the case. If you want marriage equality, then you must allow incest, polygamy, beast, etc. Not gonna happen for the next 100 years.
 @STK I guess if we are going to allow everyone to comment, then we have to suffer through nonsense like your comment now and again.
Now is this ironic or what....Newt Gingrich (yes, that Newt) has come out repeatedly against gay marriage. Now let's look at Mr. Family Values himself..... he has been married 3 times, had multiple mistresses in ALL of his marriages (why anyone would screw that disgusting cad is beyond me), AND he is currently married to his mistress from his last marriage. Yep, he's an expert on morality and family values......
Epic waste of tax dollars, as is most of what the Republicans do in Congress these days. Â They'd much rather do the work of the people in my bedroom, then do the work of the people in our country. Â
It's well overdue that marriage equality become the law of America. Fact is, we will all see Marriage equality in all 50 states in our lifetime and all those who made jack****s out of themselves trying to fight to protect hate, will be remembered the way we remember the ignorant racists of 50's and 60's.....Congratulations Washington state!!!
This seems a total waste of time and money -- you shouldn't need voter to approve same sex marriages, you shouldn't need the courts -- who cares who you marry -- what happened to home of the free?
@Thedudeabides - this whole thing is a waste of time. But the anti-gay marriage folks can't resist the temptation of wanting to force everyone else to live by thier standards - because 'you know they're right anyway. It's not up to anyone else to decide how everyone should live thier lives - only those who are 'correct' have that right.  (and the only ones who are correct happen to be right wing conservatives who have problems with 'gay' in general, let alone with 'gay marriage'.)
Â
Â
Lousy marriages of which 50% end in divorce are so sacred we can't just let ANYBODY have 'em.