US bishops criticise Obama administration’s decision on marriage law
By
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON – The US Bishops’ Office of General Counsel said the
Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage
Act in legal challenges ahead "represents an abdication" of its
"constitutional obligation to ensure that laws of the United States are
faithfully executed."
"Marriage has been understood for millennia and across
cultures as the union of one man and one woman," the office said in a 23
February statement issued after President Barack Obama instructed the Justice
Department to stop defending the federal law passed by Congress and signed into
law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.
The
Defense of Marriage Act says the federal government defines marriage as a union
between one man and one woman and that no state must recognize a same-sex
marriage from another state.
"The
principal basis for today’s decision is that the president considers the law a
form of impermissible sexual orientation discrimination," the Office of
General Counsel said.
In
a 23 February statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said that although the
administration has defended the 1996 law in some federal courts, it will not
continue to do so in cases pending in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Unlike in the previous cases, said Holder, the 2nd Circuit "has no
established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation
should be treated."
In
response to the announcement, the National Organisation for Marriage, which
opposes same-sex marriage, called on Congress to "get lawyers in the
courtroom who actually want to defend the law, and not please their powerful
political special interests."
"We have only begun to fight," said Brian Brown,
president of the organization. He also said that with Holder’s announcement, Obama "unilaterally"
declared homosexuals "a protected class" under the Constitution and
would effectively make a federal court decision on the law "unreviewable
by higher courts."
While Obama favours repealing the law, Holder said the
president has supported defending it as constitutional if a state or local law
meets the legal standard of having "a rational basis" for singling
out people for different treatment based on sexual orientation.
But
in the pending cases, Holder said, the administration "faces for the first
time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to
the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard,
under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are
viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply."
Obama "has concluded that given a number of factors,
including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on
sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of
scrutiny," Holder’s statement said.
He added that Obama has concluded that the law "as applied
to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is
therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the president has instructed
the department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the
president’s determination."
The
US Bishops’ Office of General Counsel said refusal to support the law was
"a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust
discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as
between one man and one woman."
It
also stressed that support for traditional marriage "is not bigotry,"
but is a "reasonable, common judgment affirming the foundational
institution of civil society." The office said that "any suggestion
by the government that such a judgment represents discrimination is a serious
threat to the religious liberty of marriage supporters nationwide."
Holder
said the legal landscape has changed since the law was passed, including with
Supreme Court rulings overturning laws criminalizing homosexual conduct and the
repeal by Congress of the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy.
Unless
Congress repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, or a final court ruling strikes
it down, it will continue to remain in effect and the administration will
continue to enforce it, Holder noted.
"But
while both the wisdom and the legality of (the pertinent section of the law)
will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate,
this administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court,"
Holder said.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and
Civil Rights, said the decision by the Obama administration reflects the
president’s views 15 years ago when he was running for the Illinois state
Senate. At the time, he said he favoured legalizing same-sex marriage and would
fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.
Donohue said Obama endorsed civil unions in 2004, but that during
his presidential campaign he spoke of marriage as a union between a man and a
woman.
"Now Obama is officially on record as president opposing the
defense of marriage," said Donohue’s Feb. 23 statement. He said the
president was not only going against the 1996 law but also was "in
opposition to the over 30 state initiatives affirming marriage as a union
between a man and a woman."