Defense Of Marriage Argumentative Analysis
The law of the land recognizes the authority of states to license marriage. The majority of states, including Indiana, provide a marriage license only to a man and woman while nine states also allow same-sex couples to receive a license to marry.
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal benefits. Under DOMA, states with the traditional definition of marriage need not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
The two cases before the United States Supreme Court challenge both Congress’s traditional definition of marriage in DOMA and California’s traditional definition in its Proposition 8. The central question before the court in each …show more content…
But my duty as Indiana Attorney General is to represent our state and to uphold and defend our state statutes when challenged, not to represent my personal views or what polls suggest is popular opinion.
The obligation of attorneys general to defend existing statutes has been brought into question in these two Supreme Court cases, in that the U.S. attorney general and the California state attorney general are not defending their own federal and state laws that are being directly challenged.
To make things more confusing to the public, the president, who has stated that his personal views have evolved over the past few years, decided to have the Justice Department’s U.S. Solicitor General argue against upholding DOMA at the Supreme Court. He has expressed through his Justice Department’s legal filings his own opinion that DOMA is unconstitutional.
I view my duty differently. As Indiana's attorney general, I don’t get to define marriage or vote on legislation. Instead, as state government’s lawyer, I am obligated to defend our
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal benefits. Under DOMA, states with the traditional definition of marriage need not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
The two cases before the United States Supreme Court challenge both Congress’s traditional definition of marriage in DOMA and California’s traditional definition in its Proposition 8. The central question before the court in each …show more content…
But my duty as Indiana Attorney General is to represent our state and to uphold and defend our state statutes when challenged, not to represent my personal views or what polls suggest is popular opinion.
The obligation of attorneys general to defend existing statutes has been brought into question in these two Supreme Court cases, in that the U.S. attorney general and the California state attorney general are not defending their own federal and state laws that are being directly challenged.
To make things more confusing to the public, the president, who has stated that his personal views have evolved over the past few years, decided to have the Justice Department’s U.S. Solicitor General argue against upholding DOMA at the Supreme Court. He has expressed through his Justice Department’s legal filings his own opinion that DOMA is unconstitutional.
I view my duty differently. As Indiana's attorney general, I don’t get to define marriage or vote on legislation. Instead, as state government’s lawyer, I am obligated to defend our