Editing Defense of Marriage Act (section)

==Political debate==
The 2000 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA in general terms and indicated concern about [[judicial activism]]: "We support the traditional definition of 'marriage' as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages."<ref>{{cite web |publisher=American Presidency Project |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25849 |title=Democratic Party Platform of 2000 |date=July 31, 2000 |access-date=July 15, 2010}}</ref> The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or marriage in this context.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=American Presidency Project |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29612 |title=Democratic Party Platform of 1996 |date=August 14, 2000 |access-date=July 15, 2010}}</ref>

===Bush administration===
In 2004, President [[George W. Bush]] endorsed a [[Federal Marriage Amendment|proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples]] because he found DOMA to be vulnerable: "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."<ref>{{cite news |publisher=CNN |url=http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-24/politics/elec04.prez.bush.marriage_1_single-state-or-city-marriage-rights-marriage-licenses |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120708023532/http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-24/politics/elec04.prez.bush.marriage_1_single-state-or-city-marriage-rights-marriage-licenses |url-status=dead |archive-date=July 8, 2012 |title=Bush calls for ban on same-sex marriages |date=February 25, 2004 |access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref> In January 2005, however, he said he would not lobby on its behalf, since too many U.S. senators thought DOMA would not survive a constitutional challenge.<ref>{{cite web |work=Orlando Sentinel |url=https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2005/01/17/bush-wont-lobby-for-amendment/ |first=Leslie |last=Hoffecker |title=Bush Won't Lobby For Amendment |date=January 17, 2005 |access-date=February 8, 2012 |archive-date=January 15, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115084750/http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2005-01-17/news/0501170143_1_same-sex-marriage-marriage-act-defense-of-marriage |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Obama administration===
President [[Barack Obama]]'s 2008 [[political platform]] endorsed the repeal of DOMA.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf |title=Barack Obama on LGBT Rights |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217232401/http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf |archive-date=December 17, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS |title=Open Letter from Barack Obama Concerning LGBT Equality |access-date=May 7, 2009 |archive-date=May 8, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090508195429/http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS |url-status=dead }}</ref> On June 12, 2009, the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of ''[[Smelt v. United States]]'', continuing its longstanding practice of defending all federal laws challenged in court.<ref name="obamaadmin">{{cite news|date=June 12, 2009|title=Obama Admin Moves To Dismiss Defense Of Marriage Act Challenge|work=Huffington Post|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/obama-defends-antigay-def_n_214764.html|url-status=usurped|access-date=June 12, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090614064558/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/obama-defends-antigay-def_n_214764.html|archive-date=June 14, 2009}}</ref> On June 15, 2009, [[Human Rights Campaign]] President [[Joe Solmonese]] wrote an open letter to Obama that asked for actions to balance the DOJ's courtroom position: "We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress."<ref>{{cite web |first=Joe |last=Solmonese |date=June 15, 2009 |url=http://www.hrcbackstory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Solmonese-letter-to-Obama-re-DOMA-brief-June-15-2009.pdf |title=Open Letter to President Obama |publisher=Human Rights Campaign |access-date=September 7, 2009 |archive-date=October 17, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091017091521/http://www.hrcbackstory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Solmonese-letter-to-Obama-re-DOMA-brief-June-15-2009.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> A representative of [[Lambda Legal]], an LGBT [[impact litigation]] and advocacy organization, noted that the Obama administration's legal arguments omitted the Bush administration's assertion that households headed by opposite-sex spouses were better at raising children than those headed by same-sex spouses.<ref name=obamaadmin />

On February 23, 2011, [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Eric Holder]] released a statement regarding lawsuits challenging DOMA Section 3. He wrote:<ref name=holder/>

<blockquote>After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President 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. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, 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.</blockquote>

He also announced that although it was no longer defending Section 3 in court, the administration intended to continue to enforce the law "unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality."<ref name=holder/>

In a separate letter to [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] [[John Boehner]], Holder noted that Congress could participate in these lawsuits.<ref name=HolderLetter>{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/letter-attorney-general-congress-litigation-involving-defense-marriage-act  |title=Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act|date=February 23, 2011 |access-date=June 26, 2015}}</ref>

On February 24, the Department of Justice notified the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|First Circuit Court of Appeals]] that it would "cease to defend" ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management|Gill]]'' and ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services|Massachusetts]]'' as well.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=GLAD |url=http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/doj-letter-re-ma-doma-cases-02-2011.pdf |title=Letter of Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, to United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit |date=February 24, 2011 |access-date=February 28, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110724135920/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/doj-letter-re-ma-doma-cases-02-2011.pdf |archive-date=July 24, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On July 1, 2011, the DOJ, with a filing in ''Golinski'', intervened for the first time on behalf of a plaintiff seeking to have DOMA Section 3 ruled unconstitutional, arguing that laws that use sexual orientation as a classification need to pass the court's [[intermediate scrutiny]] standard of review.<ref name=dojgol /> The DOJ made similar arguments in a filing in ''Gill'' on July 7.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=GLAD |url=http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2011-07-07-doj-on-en-banc.pdf |title=DOJ Support of Petition for En Banc Review |date=July 7, 2011 |access-date=July 12, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110803213657/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2011-07-07-doj-on-en-banc.pdf |archive-date=August 3, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

In June 2012, filing an [[amicus curiae|amicus brief]] in ''Golinski'', two former Republican Attorneys General, [[Edwin Meese]] and [[John Ashcroft]], called the DOJ's decision not to defend DOMA Section 3 "an unprecedented and ill-advised departure from over two centuries of Executive Branch practice" and "an extreme and unprecedented deviation from the historical norm".<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/former-ags-meese-ashcroft-call.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Former AGs Meese, Ashcroft Call Obama Move on DOMA 'Extreme' in Appeals Court Filing |date=June 11, 2012 |access-date=June 12, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120617190007/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/former-ags-meese-ashcroft-call.html |archive-date=June 17, 2012 |df=mdy }}</ref>

===Congressional intervention===
On March 4, 2011, Boehner announced that the [[Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group]] (BLAG) would convene to consider whether the House of Representatives should defend DOMA Section 3 in place of the Department of Justice,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/03/04/134268656/boehner-house-will-defend-doma-courts-not-obama-should-decide |title=Boehner: House Will Defend DOMA; Courts, Not Obama, Should Decide |publisher=[[National Public Radio]] |date=March 4, 2011 |access-date=March 4, 2011}}</ref><ref name="congressdefense">{{cite news |publisher=FOX News |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/boehner-launches-effort-to-defend-gay-marriage-ban/ |title=Boehner Launches Effort to Defend Gay Marriage Ban |date=March 4, 2011 |access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref> and on March 9 the committee voted 3–2 to do so.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/2chambers/2011/03/house_to_defend_the_defense_of.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112034744/http://voices.washingtonpost.com/2chambers/2011/03/house_to_defend_the_defense_of.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 12, 2012|date=March 9, 2011|title=House to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court |first=Felicia |last=Sonmez |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

On April 18, 2011, House leaders announced the selection of former United States Solicitor General [[Paul Clement]] to represent BLAG.<ref>{{cite web |work=AmLawDaily |url=http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/04/clement-fights-same-sex-marriage.html |first=Ross |last=Todd |title=King & Spalding's Clement to Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage |date=April 18, 2012 |access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref>    Clement, without opposition from other parties to the case, filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the suit "for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Section III" of DOMA.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/04/house-leadership-seeks-to-inte.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=House Leadership Seeks to Intervene in DOMA Case |date=April 18, 2011 |access-date=April 19, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110425041913/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/04/house-leadership-seeks-to-inte.html |archive-date=April 25, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>''Windsor v. United States'', [http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/Windsor-BLAGIntervention.pdf Unopposed Motion of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives to Intervene for a Limited Purpose] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110920005537/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/Windsor-BLAGIntervention.pdf |date=September 20, 2011 }}. Retrieved April 19, 2011.</ref> On April 25, 2011, [[King & Spalding]], the [[law firm]] through which Clement was handling the case, announced it was dropping the case. On the same day, Clement resigned from King & Spalding in protest and joined [[Bancroft PLLC]], which took on the case.<ref>{{cite news |title=GOP pushes on with marriage act defense after law firm backs out |first1=Russell |last1=Berman |first2=Daniel |last2=Strauss |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/89461-gop-pushes-on-with-marriage-act-defense-after-law-firm-backs-out/ |newspaper=The Hill |location=Washington, D.C. |issn=1521-1568 |oclc=31153202 |date=April 25, 2011 |access-date=November 13, 2011}}</ref> The House's initial contract with Clement capped legal fees at $500,000,<ref>{{cite news |title=Price tag on House defense of DOMA: $500k |url=http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/19/6497555-price-tag-on-house-defense-of-doma-500k |work=[[MSNBC]] |date=April 20, 2011 |access-date=April 27, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110423042221/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/19/6497555-price-tag-on-house-defense-of-doma-500k |archive-date=April 23, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> but on September 30 a revised contract raised the cap to $1.5&nbsp;million.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/house-raises-salary-cap-for-doma-lawyer-to-15-million/2011/10/04/gIQAL8biLL_blog.html |date=October 4, 2011 |title=House raises salary cap for DOMA lawyer to $1.5 million |first=Felicia |last=Sonmez |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> A spokesman for Boehner explained that BLAG would not appeal in all cases, citing bankruptcy cases that are "unlikely to provide the path to the Supreme Court....[E]ffectively defending [DOMA] does not require the House to intervene in every case, especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive."<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/us/politics/15bankruptcy.html |first=John |last=Schwartz |title=A California Bankruptcy Court Rejects U.S. Law Barring Same-Sex Marriage |date=June 14, 2011 |access-date=February 13, 2012}}</ref>