Scholar critiques judge’s ruling on Defense of Marriage Act
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.
For all current news, visit our News home page.
Further information:
- Judge Tauro Does DOMA (National Review)
- US bishops lament court’s rejection of Defense of Marriage Act (CWN, 7/13)
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
