Scholar critiques judge’s ruling on Defense of Marriage Act
CWN - July 16, 2010
Judge Joseph Tauro ruled last week that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the distribution of federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in Massachusetts. Critiquing the Tauro opinion for National Review, legal scholar Hadley Arkes-- who is, incidentally, one of the main authors of DOMA-- makes two key points. First, Judge Tauro begins by assuming what his should have set out to prove: namely, that Congress had no rational basis for defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Second, Congress passed DOMA precisely for the purpose of preventing activist judges from imposing same-sex marriage on the country.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($26,804 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!