Close this search box.

DOMA Attack Hearing at the First Circuit

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Ever since Massachusetts judges imposed homosexual “marriage” in 2004, homosexual activists have used homosexual couples “legally” married within their states and employed by the federal government to demand the extension of benefits to their “spouses.”

Standing in the way is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage, for federal purposes, as the union between one man and one woman.

In 2010, a district court in Massachusetts declared DOMA unconstitutional. And this week, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard arguments on its appeal. The cases are Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. HHS.

Representing the government was Paul Clement (straight off his stellar performance at the U.S. Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare), who was hired by Speaker John Boehner and a group of congressmen (the group is commonly known as BLAG, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group) who stepped up to defend DOMA after President Obama and Attorney General Holder decided to abandon its defense.

The Obama Administration and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are doing everything they can to undermine DOMA all over the country, and they did so in this hearing through DOJ attorney Stuart Delery.

Representing the homosexual couples was Mary Bonuato of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). And representing Massachusetts was state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

The hearing, before Chief Judge Sandra Lynch and Judges Michael Boudin and Juan Torruella, went as expected in such a liberal environment. Keep in mind that it was judges who imposed homosexual marriage in Massachusetts, making it the first state in the union to recognize them.

If the hearings are any indication, these judges will strike down DOMA simply because they don’t like it. Nothing in the law compels them to do so. As we recently discussed in Golinski v. U.S., some liberal judges will simply mold the facts to fit their desires in order to advance society in the way they believe that it must go.

There are several similar cases around the country attacking the constitutionality of DOMA. Let us keep these cases in prayer. These will inevitably end up at Supreme Court in the near future.